Can Korsgaard respond to particularism's challenge?

Order Description The main positions in normative ethics, i.e. deontology, utilitarianism, contrarianism, typically depend on general principles to determine what an agent should do. Particularism denies that principles are necessary in ethics and argues that they seem to do an injustice to many moral situations. Using Korsgaard’s account of the “practical contradiction interpretation” of universal law, show how Kantian deontology relies on principles to determine the moral rightness of an act. Next, explain particularism’s (Dancy’s) case against the use of principles in ethics. Can Korsgaard respond to particularism’s challenge? If so, how? If not, why not?