Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W. D. Ross
By Dr. Jan Garrett Last Revision: August 10, 2004. The purpose of this essay is to introduce a simple ethical theory and to give credit to the thinker who is the source of most of the ideas in it. This essay does not pretend to fully set forth W. D. Rosss "moral intuitionist" theory, which is considerably more sophisticated than a brief discussion can show. Direct references below to Ross's words refer to The Right and the Good (2002). For more on Ross, see the items by Ross, Regan, and Stout in the Bibliography. Contents The Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines Applying the Prima Facie Duties When the Guidelines Conflict Priority Rules Importance of Avoiding Misuse Moral Intuitionism The Source of Moral Intuitions
04/10/2010
The prima facie duties include 1. Fidelity. Duties of fidelity are duties to keep ones promises and contracts and not to engage in deception. Ross describes them as "those resting on a promise or what may fairly be called an implicit promise, such as the implicit undertaking not to tell lies which seems to be implied in the act of entering into conversation . . . or of writing books that purport to be history and not fiction" (Ross, 21) 2. Reparation. This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others. Ross describes this duty as "resting on a previous wrongful act" (Ross, ibid.) 3. Gratitude. The duty of gratitude is a duty to be grateful for benefactions done to oneself and if possible to show it by benefactions in return. 4. Non-injury. The duty of non-injury (also known as non-maleficence) is the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to avoid harming their health, security, intelligence, character, or happiness. (21-22) Added August 2004: Jacques Thiroux (2001, 65) claims that Ross' duty of non-injury includes a duty to prevent injury to others. This seems to be wrong regarding Ross, but it might be reasonable to add such a prima facie duty to the list. Non-injury in Ross' strict sense is distinct from the prevention of harm to others. Non-injury instructs us generally to avoid intentionally, negligently, or ignorantly (when ignorance is avoidable) harming others. Harm-prevention instructs us generally to make a real effort to prevent harm to others from causes other than ourselves. See also the comment following the discussion of beneficence.
people.wku.edu//rossethc.htm 2/10
04/10/2010
5. Harm-Prevention. Once again, this is the prima facie duty of a person to prevent harm to others from causes other than him- or herself. 6. Beneficence. The duty to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, or happiness. This duty, says Ross, "rests upon the fact that there are other beings in the world whose condition we can make better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence, or of pleasure" (Ross, 21-22). Added August 2004: Beneficence and harm-prevention are clearly related. There is an obvious sense in which to prevent harm to persons is to do them good. But this is trivially true, normally not even worth saying (just as it's normally not worth saying that there is at least one person in the room when we already know there are two persons in the room). How, if at all, can we distinguish between harm-prevention, on the one hand, and beneficence in the strict sense, on the other, that is, beneficence that is not primarily harm-prevention? And why should we bother? Let's answer the second question first: We should bother because frequently harm-prevention is morally more demanding than beneficence. If the alternative is between preventing a toddler from wandering into a busy street and playing catch with her sister, it is clear what should take priority. But how can we distinguish harm-prevention from beneficence in the strict sense? Loosely, harm seems to be whatever significantly degrades, or risks degrading, our health or other capabilities for coping with and getting the most out of life. By contrast, benefit seems to be whatever enhances, or is likely to enhance, those same things. 7. Self-Improvement. The duty of self-improvement is to act so as to promote ones own good, i.e., ones own health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, and happiness. Ross himself mentions "virtue" or "intelligence" in this connection (21). 8. Justice. The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one distributes benefits and burdens fairly. Ross himself emphasizes the negative aspect of this duty: he says that this type of duty "rests on the fact or possibility of a distribution of pleasure or happiness (or the means thereto) that is not in accord with the merit of the persons concerned; in
people.wku.edu//rossethc.htm 3/10
04/10/2010
such cases there arises a duty to upset or prevent such a distribution" (21). Thus the duty of justice includes the duty, insofar as possible, to prevent an unjust distribution of benefits or burdens.
04/10/2010
Non-parasitism could support the more concrete duty not to steal the property of others. If I benefit from the respect that others have for my own property (they do not take it or use it without my consent), I am a beneficiary of the institution of respect for personal property. But if I myself steal from others, I am acting as a parasite on that institution. Several of the prima facie duties listed above (or principles quite like them) have been proposed at various times to be the most basic insight or principle of ethics. Even if we agree with Ross that no single general duty is applicable in every situation that calls for moral choice, we can still learn from theories that have more fully explored the potential implications of each duty. See Correlating Prima Facie Duties with Ethical Theories.
04/10/2010
Priority Rules
Besides the basic prima facie duties, there are also priority rules that can give us guidance when the basic prima facie duties seem to give conflicting guidance. For example, other things equal, it is more important to avoid injury than to do positive good. In fact, 1) Non-injury normally overrides other prima facie duties. Moreover, 2) Fidelity normally overrides Beneficence. For example, keeping contracts (which falls under Fidelity) normally overrides random acts of kindness. Beneficence, non-injury, harm-prevention, and self-improvement in relation to lasting positive qualities such as knowledge, moral character, and skill
people.wku.edu//rossethc.htm 6/10
04/10/2010
often override any conflicting prima facie duty we might think we have to give each other (or ourselves) short-term pleasure or avoid causing each other (or ourselves) short-term pain. Thus, persons cannot be educated or mature without occasional discomfort or the pain that comes with admitting truths we might prefer to deny, yet we gain from such sometimes unpleasant experiences in our ability to cope with difficulty, in moral goodness, and in wisdom. However, according to this view, not only is no prima facie duty is without exception, but also no priority rule is without exception. You just have to see or recognize the exception when it occurs.
04/10/2010
The prima facie duty of non-injury may be misapplied if one uses it to justify refraining from telling a person what she needs to know for the sake of her future moral development or long-term well-being because it may distress her or somebody else in the short run. The prima facie duty of respect for freedom may be misapplied if one appeals to it to justify letting a child take risks that have a significant chance of permanently injuring her. The prima facie duty of self-improvement may be misapplied if one prefers pleasure to other benefits to oneself (health, moral improvement, intellectual improvement) or allows the prima facie duty of self-improvement in areas other than moral character to override a high presumption of duties relating to fidelity, non-injury, justice, or respect for freedom, i.e., high-priority prima facie duties directly involving others.
Moral Intuitionism
Moral intuition or perception has three functions in this approach: 1) It tells us when one prima facie rule, which at first seems to apply, does not apply because another overrides it. In other words, moral insight tells us when we have exceptions to specific guidelines. This type of moral intuition requires sensitivity to the morally significant aspects of the situation in which the chooser is located. The other two functions are related not to the situation directly but to the general rules. 2) Moral intuition tells us what the prima facie duties themselves are. We just see, by moral intuition, that generally, non-injury is a good rule to follow. 3) Moral intuition tells us what the priority rules are. We just see, by moral intuition, that generally non-injury takes precedence over beneficence. Note that the moral intuition or perception about which we are talking is not the same as perceiving a color, a sound, a taste, a texture, or a smell; nor is it the same as perceiving physical thing. It is a grasping of a truth. When it picks out morally relevant parts of a sitution, it makes use of perceptions of the nonmoral kind, but it goes beyond them to certain features as morally relevant, features that call for applying a prima facie duty to the situation. When moral intuition grasps the prima facie duties themselves, it is a
people.wku.edu//rossethc.htm 8/10
04/10/2010
04/10/2010
habits.
Bibliography
Regan, Tom, 1992. "W. D. Ross." In Encyclopedia of Ethics. Eds. L. C. and C. B. Becker. New York: Garland Publishers. Page 1111. Ross, W. D., 2002. The Right and the Good. Edited, with an Introduction, by Philip Stratton-Lake. New York: Oxford University Press; rpt. of original 1930 edition. Stout, A. K., 1967. "William David Ross." In Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Paul Edwards. New York: MacMillan. Vol. 7: 216-217. Thiroux, Jacques, 2001. Ethics: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Velasquez, Manuel G., 2002. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Ted Lockhart's academic web page on W. D. Ross
people.wku.edu//rossethc.htm
10/10