W.D. Ross on Prima Facie Duties and What Makes Acts Right
This paper examines W.D. Ross's ethical theory as presented in his essay "What Makes Right Acts Right?" Ross rejects both Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's deontology, arguing that moral action cannot be reduced to a single good. Instead, he proposes a pluralistic framework built around prima facie (conditional) duties — obligations arising from promises, relationships, consequences, and past actions. The paper traces how Ross navigates the tension between rule-based and outcome-sensitive ethics, exploring the concept of "cases of conscience" where competing duties clash, and assessing why Ross's framework is considered more explanatorily powerful than utilitarian alternatives.
- Introduction to Ross's Ethical Framework: Ross rejects single-principle ethics for pluralistic moral theory
- Critique of Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology: Ross argues utilitarianism lacks sufficient explanatory power
- Prima Facie Duties and Conditional Obligation: Conditional duties arise from promises, relationships, and consequences
- Consequence-Sensitivity and the Limits of Promise-Keeping: Ross concedes consequences can override promise-keeping duties
- Cases of Conscience and Terminology: Clashing duties create conscience cases; prima facie terminology debated
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly situates Ross's theory in relation to competing ethical frameworks (utilitarianism and Kantianism), giving the reader immediate comparative context.
- It accurately tracks the internal tension within Ross's own position — acknowledging where he reluctantly concedes to consequence-sensitivity — rather than presenting his view as monolithic.
- Specific examples, such as the promise-keeping and friend-versus-stranger scenarios, are used to ground abstract philosophical claims in concrete moral situations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: rather than summarizing Ross in isolation, it evaluates his theory against utilitarian and Kantian alternatives, showing where each framework succeeds or fails on explanatory grounds. This technique is especially effective in ethics essays, as it forces the writer to articulate not just what a theorist believes, but why that position is preferable to rival views.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by introducing Ross's core rejection of monistic ethical theories. It then examines the content of his conditional duties and compares them favorably to utilitarianism. The second half shifts to a more critical reading, identifying where Ross's own theory becomes consequence-sensitive and exploring the terminological difficulties he admits around the phrase "prima facie duty." The conclusion returns to the broader significance of the concept for modern ethics.
Introduction to Ross's Ethical Framework
In his essay "What Makes Right Acts Right?" W.D. Ross rejects both Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's deontology, asserting that ethics cannot be reduced to any single good, as claimed by these theories. Instead, he argues that moral acts are those that generate the greatest good, where "good" can imply many diverse things, including pleasures and duties. He begins by assessing what individuals take into consideration while deliberating about which action to take.
When an individual reflects on a promise he or she has made, Ross observes that the individual normally does not consider it with regard to its consequences. Furthermore, keeping the promise is not thought of as good merely because it results in the best outcomes. Under ordinary circumstances, the word "promise" itself suffices to demand that the promise be kept; however, this obligation can be annulled if breaking the promise does more substantial good.
Ross contends that, instead of any one simple principle governing how one must act, there are numerous ethically relevant facts — such as one's will, relationships, and consequences — that create a conditional, or prima facie, duty. Therefore, in the absence of any significant countervailing concern, an individual has a conditional duty to abide by promises, be truthful, be kind to friends, and so on. To ascertain whether one has an actual (or proper) duty, one must consider all the morally relevant particulars of one's situation.
References
Banham, G. (2010, February 8). W.D. Ross and prima facie duties. Retrieved from http://kantinternational.blogspot.com/2010/02/wd-ross-and-prima-facie-duties.html
What makes right acts right. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cengage.com/philosophy/book_content/0495094927_feinberg/introductions/part_5/Proposed_Standards_of_Right_Conduct/ross.html
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
24-Hour Pass
Does not renew
Get 24-Hour PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 1 during the 24-Hour Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.