I have read some of the work of Tom Regan on making moral judgments and selecting moral principles. Let me say right off that Regan argues against ethical relativism. But in spite of that fact, I think that a relativist could adopt most of the method that Regan outlines.

Regan talks about how to make our moral judgments "as free from fault and error as possible" and he lists six requirements for making such judgments:

• conceptual clarity
• full information or knowledge of the facts
• rationality (meaning that our thinking should be logical)
• impartiality (meaning the similar treatment of similar individuals)
• coolness (meaning that we should not make judgments in an emotionally excited state of mind)
• reliance on "valid moral principles"

Regan also lists several criteria for choosing "valid moral principles:"

• consistency
• adequate scope
• precision (meaning that the principle should not be so vague as to be of little use as a guide)
• conformity with considered moral intuitions (It is here that Regan incorporates Rawls' concept of narrow reflective equilibrium between moral judgments and moral principles)

As I said, Regan rejects ethical relativism. His ideas on consistency and scope are not ones that a relativist would accept. But with some suitable modification, I think that a relativist could accept most of Regan's requirements.