Generality and Moral Justification

Abstract

Demands for generality sometimes exert a powerfulinfluence on our thinking, pressing us to treat moregeneral moral positions, such as consequentialism, assuperior to more specific ones, like those whichincorporate agent-centered restrictions or prerogatives. Iarticulate both foundationalist and coherentist versions ofthe demands for generality and argue that we can bestunderstand these demands in terms of a certain underlyingmetaphysical commitment. I consider and reject variousarguments which might be offered in support of thiscommitment, and argue that generality may not be the weaponin moral argument that it is sometimes thought to be.