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. -According to Moore's "ideal utilitarianism," the right action is the one that brings about the greatest amount of:

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 all have a prima facie duty to improve ourselves.

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 is a prima facie duty, and how do prima facie duties differ from actual duties? What advantages does Ross claim for his ethic of prima facie duties? What difficulties do you think such a view faces?

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 actual 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. -Ross claims that our judgments about what we actually ought to do in particular circumstances are self-evident.

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 main issue between utilitarianism and its opponents is whether:

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 can come to know what our prima facie duties are? How does he think we can come to know what are our duty is in a particular situation?

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 Ross's analogy between his theory of prima facie duties and the laws of nature. In what ways are the two similar? In what ways are they different?

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, there is only one duty: that of producing as much good as possible.

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 according to ideal utilitarianism, the only morally significant relationship between people is that of being possible beneficiaries of one another's actions.

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 does Ross claim is intrinsically good?