As a moral realist, William David Ross argues that there are objective moral truths, that is, objective moral truths exist in reality. However, Ross claims that something is good only if that thing is really good. Hence, the concept of right and good play an important role in Ross’s moral philosophy. As a matter of fact, for Ross, rightness and goodness are the only two moral properties.
It is important to note that for Ross, rightness and goodness are indefinable, that is, they are irreducible objective qualities. Thus, as they are in themselves, rightness and goodness cannot be defined. However, as Ross would have us believe, we can make sense of what rightness and goodness are through their physical manifestation. Consider, for example, the following statement: “I have a good dinner”. Here, we understand the word “good” only in reference to its physical manifestation, that is, the dinner is satisfying. But as it is in itself, Ross argues that we cannot tell what really is goodness.
What the above contention implies is that, for Ross, there is no such thing as “absolute goodness”. Goodness, therefore, depends on a specific situation. For example, when we say “Divorce is good”, then this “good” cannot be absolute. In other words, divorce might be good to some people but bad to others.
Now, Ross contends that “rightness” belongs to an act, while “goodness” belongs to a motive. Thus, rightness is not identical with the act per se, just as goodness in not identical with motive.
But how do we know the rightness of an act and the goodness of its motive?
According to Ross, in order for us to know the rightness of an act and the goodness of its motive, we need to determine the non-moral properties or circumstances that surround the act itself. Let us consider, for example, a physician administering a medicine to a patient. Before we can know that the physician’s act of administering a medicine to a patient is good or not, we need to know: a) what the medicine is and b) why the physician is administering the medicine. If the physician is administering the right medicine in order to cure the patient, and she is doing it out of duty, then we can say that the physician’s act of administering the medicine is “right” and that her motive is “good”.
Conflict of Duties: Prima Facie and Actual Duties
As a non-consequentialist, Ross rejected G. E. Moore’s consequentialist ethics and argues instead that maximizing the good is only one of the several prima facie duties which guide the individual in determining what she ought to do in a given situation. As we can see, Ross’s moral philosophy hinges also on the concept of prima facie duty and actual duty.
In Ross’s moral philosophy, prima facie duty refers to a conditional duty, while actual duty refers to an unconditional duty. According to Ross, an actual duty is one’s “duty proper”. As our duty proper, an actual duty is what we have been referring to as our moral obligation. The actual duty, indeed, is the most stringent duty.
Now, how do we resolve when conflict of duties arise?
According to Ross, when conflict of duties arises, then we ought to do that which is mora of a duty. In words, Ross is telling that when conflict of duties arises, we ought to act in accordance with the prima facie duty which has a greater balance of rightness over wrongness. Let us consider the example below.
Gloria promised her son to be home early from work so they could have dinner together. However, when Gloria is about to go home, her boss had a heart attack. Since nobody is around except herself, Gloria felt obligated to bring his boss to the hospital.
As we can see in the situation above, Gloria is faced with two conflicting duties, namely, her duty to fulfill her promise to her son to be home early so they could have dinner together, and her duty to bring her boss to the hospital.
So, which one of the duties above is Gloria’s actual duty, that is, the most stringent duty, which is Gloria’s moral obligation?
As we can see, there are two prima facie duties here, namely:
Prima Facie Duty #1: Gloria’s duty to fulfill her promise to her son to be home early so they could have dinner together
Prima Facie Duty #2: Gloria’s duty to bring her boss to the hospital
Now, which is more of a duty from the two prima facie duties above? Obviously, as Ross would have us believe, prima facie duty #2 is the most stringent duty. Hence, Gloria’s moral obligation (therefore, the actual duty) is to bring her boss to the hospital.
How do we then know that one is more of a duty than the other? Or how do we know that such duty has a greater balance of rightness over wrongness?
First, Ross believes that one, and only one, of the two prima facie duties is our actual duty. Of course, we cannot do both; this is self-evident. And second, according to Ross, we can absolutely have the right opinion about which is “more of a duty” because it is always self-evident. As in the case of the example above, of course Gloria’s son may get disappointed because her mom breaks her promise, but Ross would have us believe that anybody who is in her sound mind will choose prima facie duty #2 over prima facie duty #1.
As we can see, we can apprehend the actual duty from the two conflicting prima facie duties using our intuition (this explains why Ross was considered as an intuitionist). Hence, in Ross’s moral philosophy, the actual duty appears to be self-evident just as the axioms in mathematics.
At the end of it all, what Ross suggests is that whenever one needs to make a moral decision in which more than one prima facie duties is involved, one needs to study the situation as fully and extensive as she can until she arrives at a sound opinion about which of the conflicting prima facie duties is more of a duty. The prima facie duty that is judged to be “more of a duty”, that is, the most stringent duty, appears to be one’s actual duty. And, according to Ross, there are rules of thumb that will guide us in determining which of the conflicting duties is more of a duty. For example, non-maleficence is more stringent than beneficence.
In his famous work The Right and the Good, Ross listed seven basic types of prima facie duties, like a list of commandments, that will guide us in making moral decisions. As is well known, the correct moral principles in Ross’s moral philosophy are expressed in these seven basic prima facie duties. Because there is no ranking among them, Ross argues that they must be judged separately.
- Duty of fidelity: this is our duty to be faithful or be loyal to loyalty to a worthy cause.
- Duty of reparation: this is our duty to right the wrongs we have done to others.
- Duty of gratitude: this is our duty to appreciate and recognize the services others have done to us.
- Duty of justice: this is our duty to be fair with everyone.
- Duty of beneficence: this is our duty to do good towards others or our duty to help others.
- Duty of self-improvement: this is our duty to improve one’s self with respect to virtue, intelligence, and happiness.
- Duty of non-maleficence: this is our duty not to inflict evil, injury, or harm to one’s self and other.