(Click here to continue on the main path)

But what about "reflective equilibrium"? That's another part of Rawls' theory.

Rawls points out that when we think about justice we sometimes formulate broad generalizations and we sometimes make judgments about specific cases. IDEALLY we want to have generalizations and particular judgments that are entirely consistent with each other. The specific judgments fit nicely under our generalizations.

If we start out with a few generalizations that seem plausible and then compare them with our most considered particular judgments, we may have to make some adjustments. We may have to qualify our generalizations or modify some of our particular judgments.

After we compare generalizations with considered judgments and make various changes so that they fit together we eventually reach a state that Rawls calls a "reflective equilibrium." In the state of equilibrium there is complete consistency between our generalizations and our particular judgments.

Now, as I understand it, Rawls believes that if we consider his two principles of justice in relation to our most considered particular judgments about justice, we will conclude that they are in equilibrium.