ABSTRACT
In Reason and Morality, Alan Gewirth argues that the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) is the supreme principle of morality. He employs what he calls the 'dialectically necessary method'. The project of revisiting landmark cases with the aim of offering idealised judgments is, by its nature, one focused on argument from the judges' viewpoint. The idealised judgments will seek principles to support the conclusions reached in the cases selected for revisiting, even when those principles are not part of the reasoning of judges. Awareness of such practices raises many questions about limits to third party interventions and the granting of leave in medical law cases. Gewirth distinguishes between the 'direct' and 'indirect' application of the PGC. The PGC therefore requires certain procedural mechanisms in its application, which indirectly apply the PGC. In multi-variable conflicts, where other relevant factors arise, matters are not so simple and, as will be explained, it is then necessary to apply the PGC indirectly.
