W. D. Ross
PHIL 245 – D4A3 General Ethics
Emilia C. Coleman
Benedictine University
April 24, 2013

Abstract
According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2012) on W. D. Ross, “Sir William David Ross made significant contributions to the translation and interpretation of the works of Aristotle and to moral philosophy. His work in ancient philosophy, especially his various commentaries on Aristotle, is still considered to be of the highest caliber. Many believe that Ross's work in this area is his most valuable contribution to philosophy. However, his main writings in moral philosophy are of lasting if not equal value. His The Right and the Good is arguably one of the most important works of moral philosophy published in the twentieth century” (p. 1). This essay reviews ethical pluralism. Ross contends that there is plurality of irreducible moral rules that are basic in moral thought.

W. D. Ross Ross argues there is no one single moral principle or rule. Instead, Ross thinks we can make moral betterment by learning more of our moral duties, and doing our best at balancing conflicting understanding and values. According to Ross review of Utilitarianism, which Ross considers has limited aspects of the relationships between people: the relationship of harmer to harmed and the relationship of beneficent to beneficiary. Ross advances that we have self-evident prima facie moral duties, and intrinsic value. These duties are “prima facie” because they can be overridden, duties include "utilitarian" duties to promote other people's happiness and prevent suffering. However, these are not the only duties. They may sometimes conflict, and then we have to decide which is the stronger duty. According to Ross (1996): “When I am in a situation, as perhaps I always am, in which more than one of these prima facie duties is incumbent on me, what I have to do is to study the situation as fully as I can until I form the considered opinion (it never more) that in the circumstances one of them is more incumbent than any other; then I am bound to think that to do this prima facie duty is my duty sans phrase in the situation” (p. 313).
Duties determine what we ought to do but they do not determine what we ought to do with all things considered. Whatever we ought to do all things considered will override any other conflicting duties. Prima facie duties are ones that Ross meant are considerations that tend to make the case for that action as our duty.
Ross suggested that his principles of prima facie duty cannot be inferential from other propositions. According to Ross (1996), that of these principles, "In both cases we are dealing with propositions that cannot be proved, but that just as certainly need no proof" (p. 315). Ross theory infers that we have prima facie duties not to harm people at least to the extent that it causes any intrinsically bad (pain) and to help people to the extent that it produces something intrinsically good (pleasure/happiness). The theory of prima facie duties involves Ross in a commitment to pluralism about the right.
In moral theories we find the situation to be even more complicated since these prima facie duties are a labyrinthine. Ross asserts that prima facie duties are not really duties stand in a certain special relationship to duties. Ross' prima facie duties are actual duties with his Ross claims that prima facie duties are not actual duties but only related to them. I think it has to do with prima facie duties being general but Ross believes that all real duties are circumstantial. Ross theory is superior to Utilitarianism. They both have too many things to consider and too “what if” scenarios. However, pluralism of moral theory is sounder. Ross contends that there is plurality of irreducible moral rules that are basic in moral thought. No one theory cover everything in its entirety, a theory must be flexible as the agent. Moreover in contrast, I would lean more to Ross theory than Utilitarianism it has far lest to consider when making a decision.

Reference
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2008). William David Ross. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 1. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/william-david-ross/#RosDisMorFraRigGoo Timmons, M. (2011) Pluralism, p. 312-317. Conduct and Character: Reading in moral Theory. Mason, OH. Cengage Learning. Thompson-Wadworth Publishing Co.