The
ethical relativist must admit that proof of the kind found in
natural science or logic or mathematics is not available for moral
principles.
But the possibility of developing a wide reflective equilibrium is
an alternative that provides something that we might call moral
knowledge or, at least, a justification for a set of principles.
It seems to me that this shows that if the relativist achieves wide reflective
equilibrium, it follows that his or her moral principles are not
arbitrary and that it is not true that "anything goes" as
some people fear.