principles. A second solution to this problem is to develop a scale for
weighing the significance of the conflicting principles in a given case
and for concluding which action should be adopted because it is
supported by the weightier considerations in that case. Such a solution
seems more realistic than the lexical ordering approach, but the
development of such a scale is a problematic task. Still other, more
complex solutions are possible. Which is the best solution to this
problem of conflicting principles of bioethics? We need a moral theory
to answer that question. This is the first reason for concluding that
the principles of bioethics are not the true foundations of justified
judgment in bioethics. What is the problem of the unclear scope and
implications of the principles of bioethics and how can an appeal to
moral theory help deal with that problem? The scope of a bioethical
principle is the range of cases in which it applies. The implications of
a bioethical principle are the conclusions to be derived from that
principle in those cases in which it applies. It is clear from a review
of the discussions in bioethics that there are major unclarities about
the scope and implications of each of the principles. Consider, for
example, the principle of autonomy.