A justificatory method in which considered judgments (about particular cases), general principles, and theoretical commitments are adjusted reciprocally until a coherent balance is reached that best reconciles them within the intended epistemic aims.

Principle

Justification consists in achieving mutual coherence among judgments and principles by iterative revision; neither isolated intuitions nor abstract principles are privileged without the test of their coherence with one another under the chosen standards.

Demonstration

Illustrative scenario → Situation: An ethicist confronts a conflict between a general principle (maximizing welfare) and considered judgments about fairness in specific cases. Recognition: She identifies tensions and modifies the principle or reinterprets judgments to reduce conflict. Action: Through successive adjustments the principle is reformulated to accommodate salient judgments while retaining generality. Consequence: The resulting position is more coherent and better grounded for decision guidance within the project’s justificatory aims.

Misapplication

Assuming that any equilibrium reached is uniquely correct or immune to revision. The semantic error is treating coherence as a proof of truth rather than a justificatory standard contingent on starting judgments and methodological choices.

Consequence

Applied properly, reflective equilibrium yields principles that are more comprehensible, mutually supported, and practically applicable; however, outcomes depend on which judgments are taken as ‘considered’ and on methodological constraints, so different starting points can produce different equilibria.

Reversal

If external epistemic standards (e.g., reliability of methods, empirical constraints, institutional norms) are imposed that the equilibration process does not incorporate, the equilibrium may be undermined or require recalibration; likewise, in contexts privileging procedural rather than substantive justification, equilibrium may be inappropriate.

Boundary

Clearly within: Moral or epistemic theorizing that seeks mutually supporting principles and judgments. Boundary case: Policy formation where stakeholder power and negotiation affect which judgments count as ‘considered.’ Clearly outside: Simple consistency checks that do not involve reciprocal revision or methods that substitute voting or authority for reflective justification.

Semantic Tension

Faithfulness to considered judgments ↔ Theoretical simplicity and generality; reflective equilibrium requires balancing fidelity to particular intuitions with the desire for unified principles.

Synthesis

Reflective equilibrium is a method of mutual adjustment, not a decision procedure guaranteeing uniqueness: it legitimates principles by their coherence with considered judgments under explicit methodological constraints, thereby making justificatory trade‑offs transparent.