Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

What makes an Acts Right?
By: William David Ross

•

What makes an Acts right was an excerpt from W
...


•

He found Utilitarianism and Kantianism both interesting but found major flaw on the two
...
(Jeremy
Bentham's utilitarianism) but Ross opposed it by saying that the emphasis on the quality of
being well is in utilitarianism, but not the belief that maximizing goodness is our exclusive
moral obligation
...
com)
...


•

In the compromise theory that Ross creates, he gave numerous grounds for moral duties as
a basis for prima facie (translated as based and on the first impression; accepted as correct
until proved otherwise) duties saying that if there are no reasons that are more essential in
the given situation, then it is an important reason that generates an “all-things-considered”
responsibility
...


•

It is said the sometimes appropriate for instance to enhance overall enjoyment even if it
means committing an injustice since there is an inability to provide a stable ranking of
those primary duties
...


•

The prima facie duties according to Ross are self-evident
...


•

The point that Ross wants to expound was, is there really a general quality that will cause
an action, right? If there is, then what is it?

•

Egoism and Utilitarianism are the two of the most historical attempts thaw will define a
single characteristic of all right actions, that is the foundation of rightness
...


•

There is a theory that was proposed by Professor Moore giving a view of what makes action
right is whenever they are produced better than any other action available to the agent
...


•

The first attempt that this form takes is to base rightness on the agents’ benefit or pleasure
...


•

Ross also believes that when a man does anything, it is because he believes it will benefit
his own interest
...


•

Hedonistic Utilitarianism need a turn of correction in terms of pointing out that pleasures
being enjoyed by men should never be a reason for him to bring in into being
...


•

On Ross reflection, it is evident that pleasure is not the only thing in our lives that we can
consider good
...
The substitution of being productive for the
greatest pleasure to being productive for the greatest benefit is already a significant
advancement
...


•

What gives concept in this theory is not the actions but the consequences that a man fulfill
his/her promise
...


•

There are two ideas, each of which is basic on its ways, that offers solutions to such moral
cases
...
Next is the idea of Professor Moore and Dr
...

•

The theory of ideal utilitarianism in exact words appears to exaggerate our interaction with
others
...


•

Ross promotes the term prima facie duty or conditional duty as a short way of referring to
the quality that an act possesses a virtue that is appropriate and morally significant at the
same time
...
First,
it implies that we are discussing a specific type of responsibility, but in fact, we are
discussing something that is connected to duty in a unique way
...


•

In terms of prima facie duties, everything rests with definite circumstances that cannot be
held without moral significance
...

➢ Gratitude- We should be grateful to people when they do something for us,
and we should endeavor to repay the favor
...

➢ Beneficence- We should strive to be equitable in our distribution of
advantages and burdens
...

➢ Non-Maleficence- We should avoid causing bodily or psychological harm
to others
...


•

The serious issue in the "ideal utilitarian" theory is that it ignores, or at the very least
undervalues, the extremely personal nature of duty
...


•

It could be argued once more that our idea of multiple and frequently competing categories
of prima facie responsibility leaves us with no principle by which to determine what is our
actual duty in specific circumstances
...


•

When we contemplate the wide range of pleasure effects of our actions, we must clearly
accept that hedonism, claims that it provides a conveniently criterion of moral conduct and
it is quite deceptive
...


•

The distinction between prima facie duty and actual or absolute duty must be maintained
...


•

The relationship between our perceptions of the prima facie rightness on specific types of
acts and our mental attitudes about those acts deserves to be discussed
...


•

They are not self-evident and our conclusions regarding our specific responsibilities do not
follow logically from self-evident premises
...


•

The only possible premises would be the general principles indicating their prima facie
rightness or wrongness, having the various traits they actually have, even if we could
predict the extent to which an act will trend on one hand, there is no principle by which we
may conclude that it is entirely correct or entirely incorrect
...
It is our good fortune if the act we perform
is the proper act but this does not make our action of duty a matter of chance
...
When we've matured enough and able to think

in broad terms, we can now understand prima facie rightness that can be inherent in any
promise of fulfillment
...
The moral convictions of
thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics
...




---