Is it better to uphold one principal over another if that principal has worse or negative effects than the other, even if it's considered morally superior?
So, this one might be an intense and loaded question, but here it goes...
If you are elected to a government position and have to come up with a policy that provides a higher quality of life to the majority of your citizens, then given a collection of possible policies to implement, should you choose to implement a policy soleley based on its philisophical morality or its real-world effects on society?
Another way of looking at this is if a concept is perfectly moral in theory but in practice its effects are somehow detrimental, then is the concept worth implementing at all? Is the higher theoretically or philosophically moral stance always the better stance when considering the real world implications of that stance?
