The method of public morality versus the method of principlism

Abstract

Two years ago in two articles in a thematic issue of this journal the three of us engaged in a critique of principlism. In a subsequent issue, B. Andrew Lustig defended aspects of principlism we had criticized and argued against our own account of morality. Our reply to Lustig's critique is also in two parts, corresponding with his own. Our first part shows how Lustig's criticisms are seriously misdirected. Our second and philosophically more important part picks up on Lustig's challenge to us to show that our account of mortality is more adequate than principlism. In particular we show that recognition of mortality as public and systematic enables us to provide a far better description of morality than does principlism. This explains why we adopt the label "Dartmouth Descriptivism."