Off on an ethical tangent...

W.D. Ross’s Theory of Prima Facie Duties

Ross’s work The Right and the Good (1930) proposes a deontological theory of ethical proportions. Deontological theory concerns ethics of duty, moral obligation, and right action. The theory provides a defensible account of “cases of conscience” concerning situations that confront us with a conflict of duties. Opposing lines of obligation pull us in often contrary directions and thus we face an unsettled and uncertain destiny, where a choice must be made. But in which choice does the precedence or the priority lie? Our social existence is so complex these days that conflict of duty often recurs in our daily lives. But we must choose one. We are often faced with this ethical dilemma in life, and someone is bound to become disappointed (whether slightly or greatly). This theory depicts indecision as an evil beast. We cannot avoid the unavoidable.

Let’s take a quick look at the two other ethical theories that concern ethical duty. Utilitarianism is found in the works of two English philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They have established contemporary distinctions in the forms of act- and rule-utilitarianism, and thought to follow in those forms respectively. Utility is that which provides greatest value or happiness. Act-utilitarianism can be summed up as follows: A person ought to act so as to produce the greatest balances of good over evil, everyone considered, and therefore moral calculation becomes a key component. In rule-utilitarian thought, it is believed that a person ought to act in accordance with the rule that, if generally followed, would produce the greatest balance of good over evil. The difference? Act-utilitarians are often considered “extreme” and see moral rules as simply for practical guidance. Individual actions will often progress based on “situation ethics”, weighing out the good and the bad in relation to its utility and then making a decision. Rule-utilitarianism places more of a fundamental emphasis on the articulation of a set of moral rules, where an individual action is morally right only when in accord with a moral code. Act-utilitarian thought is often considered unrestricted in its single-stage procedure of action, whereas rule-utilitarian takes on a restricted action process that filters through the moral code in a two-stage procedure.

Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals) focused on ethical theory in a different fashion. Kantian deontology surrounds the ethics of respect for people. Every person by virtue of rational nature (our humanity) has an inherent dignity. And as rational creatures, all persons are entitled to respect from others and from ourselves. Thus we are directed to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” Thus, Kant established a resultant system of duties to self as well as to other in a “perfect” and “imperfect” distinction. A fourfold classification of these duties are the perfect duties to self, imperfect duties to self, perfect duties to others and imperfect duties to others. There are NO legitimate exceptions to a perfect duty, being that certain kinds of actions are simply incompatible with respect for persons. Hence they become strictly impermissible, and cannot be put at the expense of an imperfect duty. Perfect duties can include the duty not to kill, the duty not to lie, the duty to keep promises (to others), and the duty to avoid drunkenness (for self only). Example: Inebriating oneself is treating oneself merely as a means (to the end of pleasure), and undermines rational capacity (which is in disrespect to oneself as a rational creature).
Imperfect duties require the promotion of certain goals. Two such goals are broadly classified as personal perfection (development) and the happiness or welfare of others. Respectively, these two imperfect duties are the 1) duty to self to develop one’s talents (in formulating a plan of life with commitment to this goal) and 2) duty to further the happiness or welfare of others (beneficence).

Ross maintains that neither the Kantian nor the utilitarian philosophy can harmonize a conflict-of-duty situation with “ordinary moral consciousness”. From a Kantian approach, we cannot assume that the duty of beneficence will ever take precedence over the duty to keep promises or the obligation to telling the truth. On a utilitarian stance, where we have only the one duty to maximize utility, there is a clash with conviction to the distinct lines of obligation to distinct people. It is thus essential to introduce a notion of prima facie. A prima facie duty (translated from latin; “at first glance”) is a conditional duty, as opposed to an absolute duty. Such can be overridden by another prima facie duty that in a particular set of circumstances is more stringent (rigorously binding, strict). There is no certain or absolute duty, but only the duty to choose, or to make a decision.

The basis of utilitarian and the Kantian point to a unitary basis in a fundamental principle of morality that undermines our various duties. Utilitarian, as discussed before, believes that these various duties can be derived from the principle of utility. Also, Kantian reasoning believes that our duties derive from the categorical imperative, involving means and ends. But Ross contrasts in the lack of a unitary basis. Rather, the basis of our various prima facie duties emerge out of numerous “morally significant relations.” These can be promise to promiser, creditor to debtor, spouse to spouse, parent to child, friend to friend, citizen to the state, human to human, employee to boss, etc. Each of these relations is the foundation of various prima facie duty, which are incumbent (or obligatory) upon each individual according to the circumstances of the case.

Unproblematic circumstances often involve one prima facie duty, which is our actual duty. But being that life is commonly filled with such duties, conflict-of-duty situations are bound to arise where two (or more) prima facie duties compete for priority. And only the more stringent one in the circumstances can become one’s actual duty. The best anyone can do in the most difficult conflict-of-duty situations is make a reflective and considered decision as to which competing prima facie duty holds priority in any given situation. A prime example of conflicting duties is the duty to keep promises and to assist those who are in need. In terms of our “ordinary moral consciousness,” we are inclined to prioritize the duty to keep promises. However, if the promise is relatively trivial and the need of another is compelling (a matter of serious distress), then it is clear that the priority be reversed.

Ross holds that our prima facie duties are non-arbitrarily defined. Each duty rests on a definite circumstance which cannot seriously be held without “moral significance.” Therefore, he divides them into several categories:
1. Duties of fidelity- keeping promises, honoring contracts, and telling the truth; rest on a person’s previous acts. Social roles bring a subclass of various duties of fidelity that must be adhered to
2. Duties of reparation- rectifying any wrong that has been perpetrated; resting on a person’s previous acts
3. Duties of gratitude- acting to repay someone for a previous gratitude
4. Duties of beneficence- there are other beings in the world whose condition we can make better
5. Duties of nonmaleficence- aims not to harm others and realizing that our duties can make the condition of others worse; “not injuring others”
6. Duties of justice- rests on the fact or possibility of a distribution of pleasure or happiness (or of the means thereto) which is not in accordance with the merit of the persons concerned
7. Duties of self-improvement- improving one’s own condition
Note that Ross’s theory provides us with a helpful framework for conceptualizing our moral dilemmas. But note also that it provides us with virtually no guidance for resolving them. It does not provide any principles we can appeal to in an effort to make the “appropriate” decision. The theory is formulated upon the realization that we are forced to make decisions (and difficult ones, at times) and that we are often called to look upon our overall system of moral convictions as the standard for rendering a “considered decision.”

So what is Ross telling us? Make a decision. Not just any decision, but a decision. We all have an active duty to pursue. Consider all of the possibilities and make the best damn decision you can in life. Any decision, just do something. No one can tell you that you made the wrong one if your intentions are good with a morally sound basis. Obviously, killing is not the way to go with a good decision. That is most likely the worst decision you can make. But could it be beneficial in a different context? It goes to show how much our world is in an ethical dilemma. He’s wrong. She’s wrong. He’s right, she’s right. Gun control this, no war that. I wouldn’t have done that, don’t do this. A constant battle between good and evil, wrong and right. Everyone has their own conflict-of-duties to deal with, and it will often conflict with the views or even the duties of others. People are going to get hurt, while other people are going to be happy, or prosper. People will live and people will die. But the more the world worries about it, the more likely people are going to lack confidence, boldness in their decision-making. And then no one is going to do anything; solely out of fear. Hiding will be the only result to the 8th duty; the duty of fear. Historically, those who shook the earth moved while everyone stood still.

They say that most of the seeds of greatness lie in cemeteries. People who fear their potential, who fear others, who fear what other people think. How long will someone hide under a blanket warm with the comfort of indecision and inactivity? Apparently as long as God lets them live. So many people are unhappy, “depressed”, or disgusted with their circumstance. But they wait until its too late to do something about it. We cannot depend on drugs, medications or the means of some menial pleasure to take us away. We hope someone, something, or some deity will come along and magically everything gets better. To some extent, with time, maybe yes. But it doesn’t last long if you can’t do something with it. Every new day is a gift. Therefore, today is a gift; and that’s why they call it the present. Make the most of it. There are already enough seeds that have been lost in time.


"General Introduction" Mappes, T., & Degrazia, D. Biomedical Ethics, 6th Edition. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006.

"Various words," Retrieved on on January 22, 2008 from http://www.dictionary.com.