ABSTRACT
Reflective equilibrium of its very nature lets rational people with conflicting desires dissent from each other in their choice of the principles to govern the conflict, provided that each person can harmonise Ann’s principles with her other principles and her intuitions about particular cases. John Rawls gives no reason to believe that there could not be an indefinite number of such 'reflective equilibria', each equally coherent. In Rawls' case, even with an initial consensus, Rawls' reflective equilibrium procedure will have people departing from consensus down endlessly branching, but consistent, interconnections of principles and intuitions about particular cases. The chapter focuses on R. S. Peters’ arguments for how engaging in discourse about what to do presuppose two principles, namely, the principle of consideration of the interest of others and the principle of freedom.
