Which is to say something true but not specific - the right thing to do still depends on the details. That this principle exists, relevant, but it shouldn't be a foot in the door for rationalizing what is not a good choice on its own merits.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
Could you elaborate how specifically? I understand what you mean but don't see how this principle fails in this context as I think you are alluding to (?).
I agree we should aim to optimize as the best money, but would by default assume any concession of principle that aims to do so to be most likely to be short sighted. After all, we have principles because they predict outcomes better than forecasting. As to context, I'm not actually being adversarial to the specifics, only highlighting the generalized counter point for edification:
When 'rigid axiomatic rule prohibits' I agree let's not 'let perfect be the enemy of the good', but I would simply add that the cautionary counter point to *that* then is 'system failure and injustice often begin with rationalized concessions of principle'