PrimaFacieDuties PDF

Prima Facie Duties
W. D. Ross (1877-1971) was a British philosopher at Oxford University. He was

familiar with forms of utilitarian thinking, and understood Kant’s theory. He was not
satisfied completely with either theory, but recognized that each could be correct some
of the time. The deontological theory he developed in the 1930s combined aspects of
both utilitarian and Kantian thinking, and was very influential in the 20th century.
Intuitionism
An idea popular among twentieth-century philosophers was that some highly abstract principles, in
mathematics as well as philosophy, are known by “intuition” rather than by experience. Once we
understand these principles we are immediately certain that they are correct. They are “self-evident.”
Intuition was thought to be a kind of “common sense.”
Some utilitarian philosophers claimed to know by intuition that “good” means nothing but
“happiness.” So to do the most good, they thought, we must bring about the most happiness.
Ross suggested that we can know by intuition that we have a set of fundamental duties, which he
called prima facie duties. He thought we see by intuition that we ought to base our conduct on
these, rather than on the idea of overall happiness. Ross’s emphasis on fundamental duties makes
his theory a form of deontology.
The Prima Facie Duties 1. Duties depending on one’s prior actions:

a. Duty of fidelity (promise keeping)
b. Duty of reparation (making up for prior wrongful acts)
The correct moral principles of
2. Duty of gratitude (being grateful for others’ acts of kindness)
Ross’s theory are expressed in a
3. Duty of justice (being fair)
list of six or seven duties, or ways
4. Duty of beneficence (benefiting or helping others)
everyone ought to act, like a list of
5. Duty of self-improvement (education or practice)
commandments.
6. Duty of non-maleficence (not harming others)
Conflicts of Prima Facie Duties

When a theory presents multiple principles, it is almost always possible that in certain circumstances
some of those principles will generate conflicting duties.
For example, if it is our duty to help people in need, and if it is our duty not to harm other people, we might
find ourselves in a situation where we can help someone in need by harming someone else. The one duty
tells us we ought to do the helping action; the other duty tells us we ought not do it.
Ross called his principles “prima facie” duties for precisely this reason. He believed that for any duty on
the list, there could be circumstances in which it would be “overridden” by one or another duty. “Prima
facie” means, “first face,” or “at first glance.”
“Actual Duty”
Because there can always be conflicts of prima facie duties, Ross’s theory says that in any situation our
actual duty is the prima facie duty that is most “stringent.” But we often cannot know which duty is most
stringent. Ross compared this to knowing our long-term good:
“There is a parallel here between the doing of duty and the doing of what will be to our personal advantage.
We never know what act will in the long run be to our advantage. Yet it is certain that we are more likely in
general to secure our advantage if we estimate to the best of our ability the probable tendencies of our
actions in this respect….”
Advantages and Influence

Ross’s theory seems capable of offering more satisfying answers to moral conflicts than either utilitarian
or Kantian theories; and for this reason it has been very influential.
Utilitarians usually have to say that when an action produces greatest happiness it is right, even if it is
harmful to someone. Ross’s theory can say that an action producing greatest happiness may not be right,
depending on the harm (the duty of non-maleficence may be more stringent).
Kant’s theory must often say that lying is wrong, even it can be beneficial. Ross’s theory can say that a lie
may not be wrong, depending on the benefit (the duty of beneficence may be more stringent).
Ross’s theory has been most useful for helping medical professionals, and business people, to understand
basic moral principles that apply in their practices. It is helpful to know what prima facie moral principles
apply, so professionals can be more or less confident when they encounter moral “hard cases.” Sometimes
utilitarian-type thinking seems correct, sometimes Kantian-type thinking seems correct.
Problems for Ross’s Theory of Prima Facie Duties

 A problem for any “intuitionist” theory is knowing when our intuitive knowledge is complete:
might there be more (or fewer) prima facie duties than appear on Ross’s list, how do we know?
 Another problem is how to proceed when different people view the stringency of duties
differently: what if people disagree on which prima facie duty is more stringent in a given case?
 Ross’s theory seems only “half-baked”: a moral theory is supposed to solve the problem of
conflicting principles, not tell us that we usually cannot know what the right answer is.

PrimaFacieDuties PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PrimaFacieDuties PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PrimaFacieDuties PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prima Facie Duties

W. D. Ross (1877-1971) was a British philosopher at Oxford University. He was

The Prima Facie Duties 1. Duties depending on one’s prior actions:

Conflicts of Prima Facie Duties

Advantages and Influence

Problems for Ross’s Theory of Prima Facie Duties

You might also like