The ubiquity thesis is a generalist view and a particularist will have problems with this thesis. Kagan, in his The Additive Fallacy, points out a problem with one factor always being counted equally in deciding the moral outcome of an action. The problem he highlights is that it is impossible for a fundamental moral principle (factor) to be universal. He goes on to say that the ubiquity thesis states that the effect of the factor must be universal and for the effect to be universal, the role must be universal. To illustrate what he means by this, Kagan gives the example of a chemical reaction. Oxygen plays a role in chemical reactions, but the effect of that role changes depending on whether oxygen is present or absent. The presence of oxygen would mean that the chemical reaction causes a fire and its absence would mean that there is no fire. The role of oxygen remains the same in chemistry, but its effect varies depending on its presence in the reaction. To apply this to the moral outcome of actions, Kagan is saying that the factors have a universal role but not a universal effect in the outcome. To give another example, let's take generosity again, but this time towards a spoiled child. According to Kagan, generosity still plays a role in the outcome, but the effect is different because the situation was different. Kagan does not deny that generosity and other factors have an effect on moral outcome, she only disputes that generalists claim that they have a universal or invariable effect on moral outcome.