Exam 24: W.D.Ross

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -To explain the notion of a prima facie duty, Ross draws an analogy with:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Ross claims that calling a duty prima facie indicates that the duty may turn out to be illusory.

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Ross claims that implied in the act of entering into conversation is the implicit promise not to lie.

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, all right actions share a single character that is the foundation of their rightness.

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Ross claims that we learn of our prima facie duties:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -As Ross defines the term, a "prima facie duty" is not in fact a duty, but rather something related in a special way to duty.

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, our prima facie duties:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, hedonistic utilitarianism is committed to:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, we should construct a moral theory by:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, we can never be certain of what we ought to do when duties conflict.

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -What objections does Ross raise to egoism, hedonistic utilitarianism, and Moore's "ideal utilitarianism"? Do you find these objections compelling?

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Explain in detail the notion of a prima facie duty. How does Ross's prima facie duties differ from utilitarianism? Which do you think is better?

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Which of the following is one of Ross's prima facie duties?

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, the character of duty is:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, it is more important that a theory:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -How does Ross think we ought to go about constructing and arguing for a moral theory? Do you find his method plausible? Why or why not?

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -In Ross's view, if a proposition is self-evident, it will be evident from the beginning of our lives.

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -According to Ross, justice is:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Ross objects to utilitarianism on the grounds that:

W. D. Ross: The Right and the Good Ross starts by considering two influential ethical theories: egoism and hedonistic utilitarianism. Against egoism-the view that the right action is whatever will bring about the greatest benefit to oneself-Ross asserts that a large part of morality consists of respecting the rights and interests of others. Against utilitarianism-the theory that an action is right if and only if it creates more net happiness than any alternative action-Ross claims that there are many things besides happiness that are good in themselves. Because G. E. Moore's theory avoids these problems by holding that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good, Ross considers it an improvement over the previous two views. Nonetheless, Ross criticizes Moore's view on the grounds that it claims that there is ultimately only one duty: that of maximizing goodness. Against this, Ross develops his own moral theory, according to which there are a number of irreducible prima facie duties. A prima facie duty is a characteristic of an act that tends to make the act right in the absence of other considerations. That an act would fulfill a prima facie duty (e.g., the act would fulfill a promise) always counts in favor of performing that action, but this can be outweighed if the act would violate other prima facie duties (e.g., the act would cause great harm). According to Ross, there is no formula for deciding which prima facie duties take precedence over others in any particular situation; we must simply consider the circumstances in which we are acting and come to a considered opinion regarding which prima facie duty takes precedence. Because of this, we can never truly know what our obligations are in any particular situation. On the other hand, Ross claims our prima facie duties are self-evident-we can know them simply by reflecting on their content, much as we are able to recognize that certain mathematical axioms are true. -Ross claims, "There is therefore much truth in the description of the right act as the fortunate act." What does he mean by this, and why does he think it is true? Do you agree with him?