Summary |
The debate on moral
generalizations predominantly focuses on their nature, scope and function. In
this way it is partially parallel to discussion between moral generalism and
moral particularism but also goes beyond this issue that debates plausibility of
a principled approach to morality. The central topic is whether and how it is
possible to capture morally relevant aspects of actions and situation into
generalizations. Do moral generalizations cover the whole field of morality or
merely a part of it. Can we then state such generalizations merely pro tanto or
prima facie or are they exceptionless? Next issue is, what function such
generalizations serve. Are they to be understood as regulative principles, a
mere guides or do they play no significant role in moral decision-making? |