> That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?

Whut?

Surely it would also depend on the situation, and the relevance and reasoning behind B's view.

Are we in preschool with children? Then probably A is right.

But if B is a teacher and explains that the kids love a game in which they all rampantly cheat, and the teacher has given up because they are having an absolute blast breaking the rules and trying to trick each other? I hope you would change your mind too.

Are we talking about an undercover agent in a dangerous country, attempting to get a critical component from a drunk bioweapons scientist, at a card table in a casino?

These are humorous examples, but real world versions are not hard to come by.

Principles that have few or no exceptions tend to be very narrow in scope. Like don't preemptively launch world ending nukes during a stable peacetime.

The sensible approach is have the best principles you can, be willing to improve them, and apply them with care and situational flexibility.

Principles are maps, not the actual moral territory.

Principles are wisdom, not an algorithm.