Abstract Traditional debate concerning the existence of moral principles has been dominated by two opposing positions. Moral generalists maintain that moral principles, characterized as exceptionless generalizations, play an integral role in normative explanation. In contrast, moral particularists argue that exceptionlessness is an unattainable goal and, as a result, that such principles can play no part in normative inquiry. We shall argue, however, that moral principles are best understood as being those explanatory generalizations that display the greatest invariance. In this sense, we maintain that moral principles can play an important role in normative explanation despite permitting exceptions.
Nicholas Emmerson (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: