Different Methods in Political Philosophy and the Role of Intuitions

The method of reflective equilibrium (MRE) is claimed to be the most widely applied method in political philosophy and moral philosophy more generally. Roughly, according to this method, we build moral theories by trying to bring our intuitions (at all levels of generality) and moral principles into balance. Not only is it claimed that this method is the most widely applied method, but some even claim that there are no rational alternatives to this method. This claim might seem puzzling, as some philosophers claim to apply alternative methods they believe are distinct from MRE. For example, Peter Singer argues that what I will call the axiomatic method is superior to MRE. According to the axiomatic method, we should search from fundamental ethical axioms from which we build our theories. Those who claim that MRE is the only rational method, however, is not really an alternative to MRE, but rather an application of MRE. In this paper, I investigate the claim that MRE is the only rational method. Expecting that whether this claim holds might depend on how one explicates MRE, I look at different interpretations of MRE. Moreover, I discuss an objection made against interpretations of MRE that are so wide that they leave no room for alternative methods-i.e., that they become vacuous and ceases to be distinctive methods of doing ethics. I approach these questions by focusing on the role MRE and the (apparently) alternatives methods grant intuitions in moral inquiry.