ABSTRACT
The frequent conflict between principle and sentiment in social policy continues throughout history, with sentiment often trumping principle. The upshot is frequently policymaking guided by sentiment, with concomitant avoidance of the task of constructing principle. Surely, policies are often made on the basis of such sentiment selectively aroused, and rationalized in the name of justice. Selective sentiment encourages narrow reasoning, while narrow reasoning elicits selective sentiment. Narrow reasoning supports sentiment and charity, but it is minimal to support justice. In modern times, social science is often willingly enlisted to fuel and support narrow reasoning. The triumphs of sentiment over principle are legion in modern social policies, arguably indicated by many such categorical distinctions, in the United States as well as many other countries. The potential of an individual is considered to resist the pull of sentiment through the formulation of principle. But principles are ideals to strive for, not always winning out over sentiment in determining behavior or social policy.
