These principles may be stated as:
In reality, only one of these principles – accountability – is new to data protection rules.
Every theoretical science is composed of principles and problems.
Clearly, applying these principles requires considering what organs do.
Hart (1965) asked in what sense these principles could be called a “morality”.
These principles all together are usually called the set-theoretic principles.
These principles are both ultimate ontological realities and explanatory principles.
They need to cast doubt on the adequacy of the pertinent principles in the two arguments that generate inconsistencies.
It is important to note, though, that contemporary desert-based principles are rarely complete distributive principles.
The first part of the original position contains two fundamental comparisons between Rawls's principles and utilitarian principles.
It also explains what is accurate in the principles-based approach, since some of the considerations underlying analogical cases will be principles.
After selecting the eight principles of the law of peoples, the parties next check that these principles can stably order international relations over time.
But there are richer principles that are (arguably) intrinsically justified on the basis of this conception, namely, the set-theoretic reflection principles.
They may look at the legislation in their community as negotiated compromises between different principles and not as deriving from a common set of principles.
Without clear support for the rule utilitarian reading of secondary principles, it seems that Mill’s main claims about secondary principles are not inconsistent with act utilitarianism.
If unification, or epistemological conservatism, are themselves a priori rational principles, then simplicity principles stand to inherit this feature if this approach can be carried out successfully.
Margaret Little, for instance, thinks that there are no true moral principles (not even principles that express pro tanto reasons or obligations), but that there are false, defeasible principles that can nevertheless provide presumptive epistemic warrant for moral beliefs.
If these principles are merely reasonable, but not presented as true, then why should individuals accord these principles priority in their decisions about how to behave, particularly when these principles come into conflict with religious or other requirements that individuals believe to be true, and not merely reasonable (Raz 1990, 23)?
First, principles of justice provide a public standard only if they are not self-effacing - that is, only if the success of the principles from which the rules derive does not depend upon some citizens being ignorant of these principles, or upon some citizens being ignorant of others’ knowledge of these principles (see section 1.3.1).
Many nineteenth- and early twentieth century accounts of Aquinas took it that the first principles of practical reason, which he regularly calls first principles of natural law or natural right, are moral principles picking out kinds of human act as to be done (e.g. alms-giving to the poor) or not done (e.g. murder, adultery), in the manner of the Commandments.
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for principles. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
Many nineteenth- and early twentieth century accounts of Aquinas took it that the first principles of practical reason which he regularly calls first principles of natural law or natural right are moral principles picking out kinds of human act as to be done eg alms-giving to the poor or not done eg murder adultery in the manner of the Commandments