메뉴 건너뛰기
Library Notice
Institutional Access
If you certify, you can access the articles for free.
Check out your institutions.
ex)Hankuk University, Nuri Motors
Log in Register Help KOR
Subject

Is Reflective Equilibrium compatible with Foundationalism?
Recommendations
Search

반성적 평형은 토대주의와 양립가능한가?

논문 기본 정보

Type
Academic journal
Author
CHOI Kyungsuk (이화여자대학교)
Journal
Korean Society of Ethics 윤리학 윤리학 제9권 제1호 KCI Candidated Journals
Published
2020.1
Pages
29 - 57 (29page)

Usage

cover
Is Reflective Equilibrium compatible with Foundationalism?
Ask AI
Recommendations
Search

Abstract· Keywords

Report Errors
The method of reflective equilibrium, whether it is wide or narrow, has usually been understood as a coherentist moral reasoning and justification. However, R. M. Hare and Peter Singer hold that the method of reflective equilibrium is committed to foundationalism because it is committed to intuitionism. Michael R. De Paul claims that the methods of wide and narrow reflective equilibrium while not committed to foundationalism, are compatible with it. I agree with De Paul’s argument that there is no necessary relation between the method of reflective equilibrium and foundationalism and that both are compatible. Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress support and adopt reflective equilibrium as a method for biomedical ethics, but introduce considered moral judgments of common morality as foundation in order to solve the problem of pirates’Creed. Although Beauchamp and Childress support the method of reflective equilibrium, they do not want to be called as a coherentist. Their position can be called a moderate foundationalism such as Robert Audi explained because it allows coherence for justification. But I argue that Beauchamp and Childress’ solution is not the only one to solve the problem of Pirates’Creed, and that they do not discern wide reflective equilibrium from narrow reflective equilibrium. Thus, they thought that the need of substantial moral norm may be satisfied by the introduction of foundational beliefs. Rawls’s reflective equilibrium is not compatible with foundationalism because he kept the principle of coherentism that considered moral judgments may be revised for coherence. Beauchamp and Childress did not success in proving that their foundationalism is an alternative to coherentist’s reflective equilibrium because they did not prove that considered moral judgments of common morality are foundational beliefs.

Contents

No content found

References (0)

Add References

Recommendations

It is an article recommended by DBpia according to the article similarity. Check out the related articles!

Related Authors

Recently viewed articles

Comments(0)

0

Write first comments.