Aaron Swartz argued against "reflective equilibrium" by which he meant the claim that the valid sources of values are our object-level moral intuitions, and that correct moral reasoning consists of working back and forth between these intuitions until they reach coherence. His own position was that intuitions about moral principles are the only valid source of values and we should discount our intuitions about particular ethical situations.

Usually in philosophy, "reflective equilibrium" means wide reflective equilibrium, unless "narrow" is specified. Wide reflective equilibrium takes both object-level moral intuitions and intuitions about principles into account, as well as more meta-ethical or general philosophical considerations. Stanford Encyclopedia has a good article on it.