Maxims play an important role in making decisions. Some think that all decisions ought to be made by maxims and that any certain maxim should never be broken. For this to be possible the maxim would have to be perfect which is almost impossible. This is why it is possible for an action to be considered morally good although it is not based on a maxim or principle. The first reason why this is true is because of the precedence of inclinations. Before any maxim can be formed an inclination must take place. After this inclination occurs which provides one with several reasons, a maxim can finally be made. This maxim should be well thought out and since it was formed from inclination, then reason, it should be morally correct. This is to say that all maxims are originally created from inclinations. This is where the problem lies. What if an inclination is simply different in a familiar situation where a maxim is already set? Should one act on the predetermined maxim or act after using reason on the inclination and making a new maxim for that different inclination in that same situation? The latter is the necessary way to act, but this too causes all sorts of problems. Making a new maxim can be difficult and require a good amount of reasoning. No new maxim can be made without giving it adequate time to solidify. Even one weak maxim can be extremely detrimental.
Consider the example of a drowning woman. Now considered the preconceived maxim that someone should help anyone in need as long as it doesn't endanger their own well-being. A man sees a woman drowning and has to make an instantaneous choice. His principle is to help, but he is small and not a strong swimmer. The woman may also be pregnant. Time is of the essence and he knows that he is at incredible risk, but the fact the woman is pregnant pushes the man to try to save her on his inclination. He doesn't have enough time to reason properly, and even so, she is pregnant.
