But is there another way to think of knowledge?

I'm thinking of the readings that professor Sidgwick gave us, including selections from John Rawls and Norman Daniels. Rawls says that the notion of moral truth is problematic. Instead, he introduces what he calls "reflective equilibrium." Daniels elaborated this concept and applied it to concrete situations. There are two kinds of reflective equilibrium: narrow and wide.

• Narrow reflective equilibrium is a logical consistency achieved by thinking about and adjusting specific moral judgments and general moral principles.
• Wide reflective equilibrium is a logical consistency achieved by thinking about and adjusting moral principles and the other major elements in our system of beliefs.

I think wide reflective equilibrium is something the relativist can work to achieve. My question is whether it would be philosophically acceptable to call this wide reflective equilibrium moral knowledge?