Reflective Equilibrium
Updated 2026-07-31
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
Introduced by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice and extended by Norman Daniels, reflective equilibrium is a method of justification in ethics and legal theory. It works between two poles: considered judgements about particular cases and general moral principles. When the two conflict, you revise whichever seems less reliable and repeat the process until the set is coherent. Rawls distinguished narrow equilibrium, where only judgements are adjusted, from wide equilibrium, where the principles themselves are open to revision. The resulting balance is provisional and never final.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Value calibration: When instinct and doctrine conflict, adjust the weaker side instead of defending either blindly. - Consistency audit: Check whether your stated principles and your case-level reactions can be held together. - Revisable doctrine: Treat your principles as drafts that case experience is allowed to correct.
Anchor fast decisions
Intuitions about cases and abstract principles are each fallible, so using either one alone produces dogmatism or inconsistency. Forcing a two-way adjustment lets the more confident element constrain the less confident one, and repeated rounds remove contradictions that would otherwise stay hidden. Coherence rather than correspondence is the acceptance test, which is why the result shifts as new cases enter the set and why no equilibrium can claim finality.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_equilibriumverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS