There is indeed something deeply wrong with a person who lacks principles, who has no moral core. There are, likewise, certainly values that brook no compromise, and I would count among them integrity, fairness, and the avoidance of cruelty. But I have never accepted the argument that principle is compromised by judging each situation on its own merits, with due appreciation of the idiosyncrasy of human motivation and fallibility.

There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it.

Life is indeed terribly complicated — to a man who has lost his principles.

Mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.

Highfalutin moral principles are impossible guides to foreign policy. At worst, they reflect hypocrisy; at best, extreme naivete.

And when we look closely, we find a system of morals which any civilised person today should surely find poisonous.

One never knows whether people have principles on principle or whether for their own personal satisfaction.

The great difficulty with politics is, that there are no established principles.

He that always gives way to others will end in having no principles of his own.

Morals can't function normally because morals have been declared intellectually illegal by the subject object metaphysics that dominates present social thought

A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.

Morality did not keep well; it required stable conditions; it was costly; it was subject to variations, and the market for it was uncertain.

One may be better than his reputation or his conduct, but never better than his principles.

And here I always thought morality was useless