ABSTRACT
In spite of sustained criticism, principles still form the core of the usual methodology of applied ethics. People usually assume that the area they study is governed by a set of principles, that problems can be analysed as conflicts between principles, and that solution, even if argued only by intuitive 'weighing', will consist in some form of arbitration between their competing claims. In this paper I argue that this is how it should be. That doesn't mean, however, that the criticisms are simply mistaken. They help us understand the standard methodology more clearly.
