Intuitions and principles in moral argumentation

Arguing about morality involves providing reasons in favor of some normative conclusion; when the ground for such reasons is questioned, a process of systematic justification is needed. Three models of philosophical justification are discussed here: Hare’s “decisions of principle” model, two versions of philosophical intuitionism, and Rawls’s model of reflective equilibrium. It is argued that, notwithstanding contemporary criticisms of reflective equilibrium based on empirical studies on moral judgment, a qualified version of wide reflective equilibrium remains the safest strategy to provide justification to moral propositions.