Prima Facie Duties and Rossian Pluralism: Understanding Moral Obligations, Study notes of Philosophy

Download Prima Facie Duties and Rossian Pluralism: Understanding Moral Obligations and more Study notes Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!

W.D. Ross

• British philosopher
• Translator or Aristotle
• Defends a^ pluralist

theory of morality in

his now-classic book

The Right and the Good

• Big idea:^ prima facie

duties

Prima Facie Duties

Ross, The Right and the Good , pp. 19-20:

“I suggest ‘ prima facie duty’ or ‘conditional duty’

as a brief way of referring to the characteristic

(quite distinct from that of being a duty proper)

which an act has, in virtue of being of a certain kind

(e.g. the keeping of a promise), of being an act which

would be a duty proper if it were not at the same time

of another kind which is morally significant.

Whether an act is a duty proper or actual duty

depends on all the morally significant kinds it is an

instance of.”

Prima Facie Duties

An act is a prima facie wrong when there is a

moral reason against doing the act, but one that

can be outweighed by other moral reasons.

Another definition:

An act is a prima facie wrong when it has at

least one wrong-making feature.

* Don’t confuse prima facie rightness and wrongness with

actual rightness and wrongness, or what I will sometimes call

all-things-considered rightness and wrongness.

Prima Facie Duties

Example:

“If I have promised to meet a friend at a particular time for some trivial purpose, I should certainly think myself justified in breaking my engagement if by doing so I could prevent a serious accident or bring relief to the victims of one.”

• Ross (p. 18)

Let’s make this more explicit ...

Ross List of Prima Facie Duties

(a) Fidelity:

“If you make a promise, you have a prima facie

obligation to keep it.”

(b) Reparations:

“If you have wronged someone, you have a prima

facie obligation to repair it, or to make it right.”

(c) Gratitude:

“If someone has benefitted you, you have a prima

facie obligation to express your gratitude.”

(p. 21)

Ross List of Prima Facie Duties

(d) Justice:

“See to it that goods are distributed fairly.”

(e) Beneficence:

“Help a brother out.”

(continued)

(or sister!)

(f) Self-Improvement

“Make yourself a better person.”

(g) Non-Maleficence

“There is a prima facie moral obligation not to

harm others.”

Ross’ Theory: Rossian Pluralism

... right acts can be distinguished from wrong acts only as being those which, of all those possible for the agent in the circumstances, have the greatest balance of prima facie rightness ... over their prima facie wrongness ... .”

• Ross (p. 41)

Rossian Pluralism

RP: an act is morally right if and only if it

has the greatest balance of prima facie

rightness over prima facie wrongness,

as compared with the alternatives –

(where prima facie rightness and wrongness

is determined by the list (a)-(g) above).

Ross’ Theory: Rossian Pluralism

εν τη αισθησει η κρισις. Aristotle That’s right, Aristotle. The decision rests with perception. Ross

Rossian Pluralism

RP: an act is morally right if and only if it

has the greatest balance of prima facie

rightness over prima facie wrongness,

as compared with the alternatives –

(where prima facie rightness and wrongness

is determined by the list (a)-(g)).

(a) Fidelity (b) Reparations (c) Gratitude (d) Justice

(e) Beneficence (f) Self-Improvement (g) Non-Maleficence

an abstract illustration of Ross’ Theory Prima facie duties Alternatives → a1 a2 a

(a) Fidelity ............................................... 0 -1 0

(b) Reparations ................................. +10 0 0

(c) Gratitude ........................................ 0 0 0

(d) Justice ............................................. 0 0 +

(e) Beneficence ................................. +4 +1 0

(f) Self-Improvement ............................ 0 +3 0

(g) Non-Maleficence ............................ -4 +2 -

balance of prima facie rightness

over prima facie wrongness ........... +10 +5 -

the right act, according to Ross’ Theory

Deontology

Ross’ Theory is a form of “deontology.” Deontology is the view that it can be permissible, and perhaps even obligatory, not to do what would have the best outcome. Deontology is thus the denial of consequentialism. Deontological theories often believe in:

- constraints : rules that forbid (either absolutely or^ prima facie ) certain kinds of action (e.g., lying, harming the innocent) - options : agents are often permitted to favor their own projects and interests, to the detriment of overall happiness. - duties of special relationship : that we are sometimes required to favor the interests of those we stand in special relationships to (e.g., parent-child, teacher-student, friend- friend), to the detriment of overall happiness.

Ross’ Argument from Promises against Utilitarianism Alternatives benefit to A benefit to B Hedonic Utility keep promise to A 1,000 0 1, break promise to A 0 1,001 1, and help B instead

Ross’ Argument from Promises against AU

P1. If AU is true, then it is right to break the

promise to A.

P2. But it’s not right to break the promise to A.

C. Therefore, AU is not true.

Some Problems for Rossian Pluralism

(1) Incompleteness

(2) Disunity

Though consider a Kantian unification

strategy: respect for persons.

Might this help explain some of Ross’ duties?

(3) Is Deontology Irrational? ...