The author of this book review opposes principle to compromise. This is a mistake. Principles need not be absolute. Think of an absolute principle as having a moral weight of 1.0. This means that the principle must prevail whenever it conflicts with some other moral consideration. Principles can have a weight of less than 1.0 without ceasing to be principles. In one of the most widely used textbooks in biomedical ethics, for example, the authors set out four principles: (1) respect for autonomy (don't treat persons as mere means); (2) nonmaleficence (do no harm); (3) beneficence (do good); and (4) justice (distribute benefits and burdens on the basis of morally relevant characteristics). None of these principles is absolute or overriding; each has weight. In a particular case, all relevant principles must be brought to bear and assigned their proper weight. Judgment is necessary in order to determine what ought to be done, all things considered.
The framers of the United States Constitution were principled, but their principles were not absolute. They did not, therefore, compromise their principles. Each principle got its due in their deliberations, and no principle got more than its due.
