(Return to main path)

If we reach a point of reflective equilibrium, all of our ethical generalizations and particular judgments are consistent. At that point we could say that our generalizations justify our particular judgments. 

If, for example, someone asked us why we say it is wrong to steal a car to go to the ball game, we could appeal to a general rule about theft and property as justification.

This leaves open the question "What is the ultimate justification for our judgments?" Ann would appeal to some form of the principle of utility. I wouldn't. With Rawls, the ultimate justification is the choice of principles in the circumstances he calls the original position.