Introduction Moral philosophy is full of numerous terms, which have their meanings and reasons in this life. Numerous debates in this sphere prove that people can still face misunderstandings and difficulties while defining this or that term. The debate between generalism and particularism lies into the fact that the latter maintains the impossibility of moral reasons to become influential to provision of moral principles, and the former proves that moral reasons and judgments have to be dependant on provision of moral principles. These two views argue the relations, which should happen between reasons and the reasons of these reasons, and these discussion cause another significant debate of holism and atomism. These two theories of reasons argue the possibility of one reason in one situation being the same reason in another situation. Jonathan Peter Dancy is a famous British philosopher, who deals with the sphere of ethics and epistemology. His works in ethics introduce such claims like moral particularism according to which it turns out to be very difficult to find out defensible moral principles and holism of reasons according to which a reason of action under certain conditions in one particular case cannot be a reason of the same action under the same conditions in another case. The claim made by Dancy, that particularim is “a direct consequence of holism” (78), while any kind of principled ethics occurs as a direct consequence of atomism is false. His arguments in favor of particularism stem from the foundation that holism leads to particularism, thus this paper serves to undermine this entire argument. Dancy’s Arguments and the Ideas of Generalism, Particularism, Atomism, and Holism Essence of generalism and particularism, and atomism and holism as the outcomes of their debate Jonathan Dancy is one of the fist philosophers, who makes an attempt to define particularism and generalism from one and the same perspective and to prove the correctness of the view that is hardly supported by the vast majority of other moral philosophers. Dancy defines particularism as the view where “the possibility of moral thought and judgment does not depend on the provision of a suitable supply of moral principles” and admits that generalism is the view according to which “the very possibility of moral though and judgment depends on the provision of a suitable supply of moral principles” (7). This philosopher also admits that the ideas of particularism should be considered as the only correct ones. It is necessary to mention that there are two major conceptions concerning moral principles. The first idea is considered to be an absolute one, according to which there are some wrong and some right actions. Another idea contradicts the absolute one and explains that in one situation, an action may be wrong, and in other situation, the same action may be right. The existence of these two conceptions proves that the presence of particularism in this world may spoil the essence of any of these principles: If holism is true, and (further) if just about any consideration could count as a reason given a suitable context, then particularism must find some way to distinguish those considerations which normally and regularly do provide reasons