W. D. Ross: the Right and the Good

question 16

Essay

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?

---

Definitions:

Workplace Injuries

Workplace Injuries are physical harm or damage that employees suffer as a result of accidents or unsafe conditions in their place of employment.

Canada

A country in North America known for its vast landscapes, diverse cultures, and bilingual English and French speaking populations.

WHMIS

Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, a comprehensive system for providing information on the safe use of hazardous materials used in Canadian workplaces.

Hazardous Materials

Substances that pose potential risks to health, safety, property, or the environment when transported, handled, or stored.