Which argument would likely assess a proposed action based on its adherence to established values and principles?

The correct choice is grounded in the examination of how a proposed action aligns with established values and principles. An argument from principle specifically evaluates the justification of actions by referencing ethical standards, moral guidelines, or foundational beliefs. This type of argument assesses the merit of the action based on whether it aligns with what is perceived as right or wrong according to these enduring values.

For instance, when discussing a policy proposal, one might argue that it should be implemented because it respects the principle of justice or upholds individual rights. This focus on ethical frameworks and moral imperatives is what makes this type of argument particularly compelling when assessing the validity or appropriateness of an action.

In contrast, other approaches such as those based on quantity primarily deal with measurable outcomes or benefits, while arguments from intent focus on the motivations behind an action, and genetic arguments emphasize the origins or background of a person or idea rather than their alignment with principles. Each of these types of arguments serves different purposes, but for assessing adherence to values and principles, an argument from principle is the most directly relevant.