There has been controversy between contextualism and principled ethics in metaethics in general and bioethics in particular. Contextualists attempt to solve moral problem by firstly working with particular cases in all of their contextual details and then by applying these results to other similar cases, whereas proponents of principled ethics try to apply the general normative ethical principles to particular cases. The former approach can be viewed as a “bottom-up” and the latter “top-down” way. As indicated by many moral philosophers, both of these approaches have shortcomings. By introducing the two levels of moral thinking, R.M. Hare argues that the two kinds of metaethical theories are not in real conflict. Contrarily, they both play important roles in our moral thinking, though at different levels. In this paper, I am going to examine to what extent, if ever, Hare’s attempt is successful, and furthermore, what are the steps that should be taken to remedy the deficiency, if any.