Advertisement

Intuitions in Moral Reasoning – Normative Empirical Reflective Equilibrium as a Model for Substantial Justification of Moral Claims

  • Ghislaine J. M. W. van Thiel
  • Johannes J. M. van Delden
Chapter
Part of the Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy book series (LOET, volume 32)

Abstract

Moral questions and dilemmas in everyday life prompt us to take a normative stance. Sometimes we rely on our moral intuitions and make judgments accordingly. In other cases, we feel the need for more extensive deliberation of a moral case. After a judgment is made, we have to ask: Can we justify our moral view to others who may have come to a different conclusion? A main theory that is put forward to seek justifiable resolutions is Reflective Equilibrium (RE). In a nutshell, RE is a coherentist model for moral justification in which the key idea is that we “test” various parts of our system of beliefs (including considered moral judgments, principles, relevant facts and background theories) against the other beliefs we hold. We aim to modify the model of RE in such a way that the moral experience of agents other than the thinker can play a role.

Keywords

Moral Judgment Moral Reasoning Reasoning Process Background Theory Moral Intuition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arras, J.D. 2007. The way we reason now: reflective equilibrium in bioethics. In The Oxford handbook of bioethics, ed. B. Steinbeck, 51. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 1979/2001/2008. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5/6th ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. BonJour, L. 1985. The structure of empirical knowledge, 93–95. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Daniels, N. 1979. Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics. Journal of Philosophy 76: 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniels, N. 2000. Accountability for Reasonableness: Establishing fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles. BMJ 321: 1300–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeGrazia, D. 2003. Common Morality, Coherence and the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DePaul, M.R. 1993. Balance and refinement. Beyond coherence methods of moral inquiry. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ebertz, R.P. 1993. Is Reflective Equilibrium a Coherentist Model? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23: 193–214.Google Scholar
  9. Edmondson, R., and J. Pearce. 2007. The practice of health care: wisdom as a model. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 10: 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guarini, M. 2007. Computation, coherence, and ethical reasoning. Minds and Machines 17: 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haack, S. 1993. Evidence and inquiry. Towards reconstruction in epistemology. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108: 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holm, S. 2008. Background paper on Article 14 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights from a philosophical perspective. Report of the meeting of the working group of IBC on social responsibility and health (Annex V), 13, Unesco, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Horton, K. 2004. Aid and bias. Inquiry 47: 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ives, J. 2008. Encouters with experience: empirical bioethics and the future. Health Care Analysis 16: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ives, J., and H. Draper. 2009. Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: it’s all relative. Bioethics 23: 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kappel, K. 2006. The meta-justification of reflective equilibrium. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9: 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. London, A.J. 2000. Amenable to reason: Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the moral psychology of practical ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10: 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Musschenga, A.W. 2008. Moral judgement and moral reasoning: a critique of Jonathan Haidt. In The contingent nature of life. Bioethics and the limits of human existence, ed. M. Düwell et al., 131–147. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nielsen, K. 1982a. Grounding rights and a method of reflective equilibrium. Inquiry 25: 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen, K. 1982b. On needing a moral theory. Metaphilosophy 13: 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radzik, L.A. 2002. Coherentist theory of normative authority. The Journal of Ethics 6: 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rauprich, O. 2008. Common morality: comment on Beauchamp and Childress. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29: 43–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rawls, J. 1971/1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (revised edition).Google Scholar
  25. Richardson, H.S. 2000. Specifying, balancing and interpreting bioethical principles. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25: 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sayre-McCord, G. 1996. Coherentist Epistemology and Moral Theory. In Moral Knowlegde? New Readings in Moral Epistemology, ed. W. Sinnot-Armstrong and M. Timmons, 137–189. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Scanlon, T.M. 2003. Rawls on justification. In The Cambridge companion to Rawls, ed. S. Freeman, 139–168. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Singer, P. 2005. Ethics and intuitions. The Journal of Ethics 9: 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strong, C. 2010. Theoretical and practical problems with wide reflective equilibruim in bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31: 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swanton, C. 1991. The role played by the method of wide reflective equilibrium in moral epistemology. Dialogue 30: 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thagard, P. 1998. Ethical coherence. Philosophical Psychology 11(4): 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Delden, J.J.M., and G.J.M.W. van Thiel. 1998. Reflective equilibrium as a normative-empirical model in bioethics. In Reflective Equilibrium, ed. W. van der Burg and T. van Willigenburg, 251–259. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Delden, J.J.M., L. van der Scheer, G. van Thiel, and G. Widdershoven. 2005. Ethiek en Empirie. Theorie en methodologie van empirisch ethisch onderzoek, 106–107. Maastricht: NWO/Caphri.Google Scholar
  35. Van den Hoven, M.A. 2006. A claim for a reasonable morality. Utrecht: Zeno.Google Scholar
  36. Van der Burg, W. 1997. The importance of ideals. J Value Inq 31: 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van der Burg, W., and T. van der Willigenburg (eds.). 1998. Reflective Equilibrium. Essays in honour of Robert Heeger. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Van der Willigenburg, T. 1991. Inside the ethical expert. Kampen: Kok Pharos.Google Scholar
  39. Woods, M. 1999. A nursing ethic: the moral voice of experienced nurses. Nursing Ethics 6: 423–432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghislaine J. M. W. van Thiel
    • 1
  • Johannes J. M. van Delden
    • 1
  1. 1.Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary CareUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations