 |
| Replies |
 (Return) |
| Moral Knowledge |
| Fred Speaking
|
 It
seems to me that two people could go through the process of developing
a wide reflective equilibrium and also meet Regan's criteria and still
end up with two different sets of ethical principles. In other words,
when all is said and done, there is no guarantee that they will agree.
The method we have described does not guarantee agreement. I think
this possibility is what the relativist is emphasizing.
In this case, we could say that both people have good reasons to accept their principles, but the principles are still different. I think this possibility is a good reason to avoid using the phrase 'moral knowledge' to describe the principles arrived at. Ordinarily we assume that if two people disagree about something, at least one of them lacks knowledge. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Ethical Relativism Home |
| Ethics Bibliography |  |
Ethical Relativism Contents |
|
||