W.+D.+Ross

Sir (William) David Ross was a Scottish ethical theorist who was a moral realist, a non-naturalist, and an intuitionist. Ross is best known for his book "The Right and the Good" (1930) and for developing a pluralist, deontological theory of obligation in response to G.E. Moore's preference utlilitarianism. William David Ross was born on April 15, 1877 in Thurso, Caithness in the north of Scotland. He was educated the University of Edinburgh, where he gained a first class MA degree in classics. He completed his studies at [|Balliol College,] Oxford and gained a lectureship at Oriel College in 1900, followed by a fellowship in 1902.
 * Life**

In 1928, William David Ross was made Knight of the British Empire and became Sir David Ross and in 1918, he was made Officer of the Order of the British Empire. Ross joined the army in 1915 where her he worked in the Ministry of munitions during World War I. Ross was Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford from 1941 to 1944 and was also president of the Aristotelian Society from 1939 to 1940.

Ross’ pluralistic mixed deontological theory of obligation emerged primarily as a response to G.E. Moore’s preference (or ideal) utlitarianism that argues: “what makes actions right is that they are productive of more good than could have been produced by any other action open to the agent.” Ross agrees with Moore’s pluralistic theory of value, which claims that there are many things on which we place value (pleasure, knowledge, friendship etc.), and hence rejects the monistic theories of Immanual Kant and John Stuart Mill, and also agrees with Moore's claim that any attempt to define ethical statements solely in terms of statements about the natural world commits the naturalistic fallacy. However, Ross contests Moore’s teleological (or consequentialist) theory of obligation, arguing it oversimplifies our duties to our fellows. He argues that benefience is but one of several duties we may encounter in our relationships with others. He therefore proposes that a mixed approach of both teleological and deontological is a more accurate representation of ethical decision making.
 * Ross' ethical theory**

Ross’ dissatisfaction with the notion that only the consequences of and not the motive behind people’s actions matter, prompted him to create a list of what he calls prima facie duties that are a mixture of deontological and teleological theories. His goal was to illustrate that moral decision-making sometimes does require us to reflect upon the past and act out of a sense of duty rather than focus on the projected outcome :
 * Prima Facie Duties:**
 * 1) Duties of Fidelity
 * 2) Duties of Reparation
 * 3) Duties of Gratitude
 * 4) Duties of Beneficence
 * 5) Duties of Justice
 * 6) Duties of Self-Improvement
 * 7) Duties of Non-Maleficence

According to Ross, in any given situation, any number of these prima facie duties can exist and moral dilemmas arise when these duties come into conflict with one another. For example, if someone makes a promise to never tell a secret (fidelity) but they later discover that keeping this secret could cause someone harm (non-maleficence) this person would have to decide which obligation has more weight. Ross admits that choosing which prima facie duty will prevail is not an easy task:

“When I ask what it is that makes me in certain cases sure that I have a prima facie duty to do so and so, I find that it lies in the fact that I have made a promise; when I ask the same question in another case, I find the answer lies in the fact that I have done a wrong,” Nonetheless, Ross would argue that one of the prima facie duties is always weightiest, and overrules all the others making it the "absolute obligation" the person should perform.

Ross' theory has some problematic areas, most notably its starting point in intuition. Ross argues that the prima facie duties are intuitive, which to many critics, is not a substantial argument. One must either accept Ross' prima facie duties as something intuitively self-evident, or one must abandon this approach all together.
 * Criticisms**

Another criticism of Ross' theory is his reliance on "sufficient mental maturity", where one must achieve this maturity to access the intuitive knowledge of prima facie duties. Some critics argue that Ross was attempting to explain away those who do not acknowledge his version of prima facie duties by suggesting they do not posess the mental maturity to discover them.

Finally, some critics argue that there is a lack of certainty as to the determination of actual duty. There is too much ambiguity, no clear method and too many opportunities for rationalization for Ross' theory to help people make moral decisions. Ross leaves it up to the individual to determine which prima facie duty should prevail, with very little guidance.