DESSERTATION TOPIC:

PLURALISTIC INTIUTIONSM IN W.D. ROSS ETHICAL PRINCIPLES:

A PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATION

BY
MBAH, ANTHONY ANIKPE

BACKGROUND
It is a known fact that as we go about the activities of our daily lives, we make decisions. Some
of the decisions concern our relationships and obligations to the state or the law, such as the
decisions about whether to abide by the rule of law or not, other decisions seem to concern only
ourselves and people with whom we are intimate, such as decisions about our actions or
behaviours within the family, towards our friends, community as well as our job. All these are
geared towards the betterments of human race either consciously or unconsciously, of course,
some of these decisions have little moral import, but moral considerations have a bearing on a
great many of our decisions. This is because an individual decision-making can be structured by
considerations of traditions, custom, law, etiquette, professional code of conduct or even self
interest. The question therefore arises: what distinguishes moral considerations from other kinds
of considerations? What does morality require? Does morality determine what we ought to do?
What kinds of actions are right or wrong? What in general, has moral value? How should we live
our lives? In answering any of these questions, one would be making a moral claim or amoral
implications.

Scholars from antiquity have discussed the above issues from different perspectives. W.D Ross’s
pluralist approach marked the pinnacle of ethical intuitionism which is a doctrine that had been
the dominant moral theory in Britain for much of the preceding two hundred years. Ross is a
moral realist whose principles are based on metaphysics of morals, normative ethics and moral
epistemology. Ross argued that rightness and goodness are objective features of the world in just
the way that shape, size and mass are. This made him to assert that:

There is a system of moral truth as objective as all truth

must be. We do not make actions right or good by our
moral attitudes, conventions, culture or whatever any more
than we make same thing square in these ways. Rather our
mind attitudes are responses to perceived goodness or
rightness.
Ross argued further that when we do appropriate things, that is, things we are supposed or
obliged to do, we do it because we believe and think that it is the way it ought to be. By this, we
ask ourselves is it really good, bad, right or wrong to do these things? Ross made it emphatically
clear, that what makes our moral belief that X is good true (when it is true) is a property or
objective characteristic X has of being good. He was also of the view that even when all of the
empirical facts are in, there is still a further moral judgment to be made namely that empirical
facts make a certain act right or good.

However, Ross insisted that rightness and goodness are non natural properties rather they are
simple properties. That rightness means that they are not combinations of two or more properties
or relations such as the relation of being appropriate (moral) and the property of being approved
(non moral) or the causal relation (non moral) and the property of being best (moral). In his
normative theory Ross defends a form of methodological intuitionism. Methodological
intuitionism maintained that there is a plurality of first principles that may conflict and that no
explicit priority rules for resolving such conflicts can be provided. This pluralism applies not
only to the right but to the good also. He maintained that there is no single source of morality but
several because there are several Prima-Facie Duties that we can use to determine what
concretely we ought to do. This prima-facie duty is a duty that is binding (obligatory) other
things equal, that is, unless it is overridden or trumped by another duty or duties and what we
must do after balancing all the conflicting prima facie duties we may have. Another way of
putting it is, that where there is a prima facie duty to do something, there is at least a fairly strong
presumption in favour of doing it unless stronger moral considerations override prima facie duty.
The Ross Prima Facie Duties includes:

1. Duties of Fidelity: There are duties stemming from our explicit and implicit promises.
That is, duties to keep one’s promises and contracts and not to engage in deception.
2. Duties of Reparation: These are duties stemming from our past wrong-doings towards
others. Ross describes this duty as “resting on a previous wrongful act”.
3. Duties of Gratitude: These are duties to repay or redo favours or simply thank others for
their kindness.
4. Duties of Justice and Fairness: These are duties involving distribution of goods and
services in a fair and equal manner whenever possible.
5. Duties of Beneficence: These are duties to try to bring about the happiness of other
people if possible.
 6. Duties of Self- improvement: These are duties involving making the best ourselves and
making our lives the best they could be.
7. Duties of Non-malfeasance: These are duties not to hurt, harm or sadden other people.

PURPOSE

Ross’s arguments against the view that we are never required to do morally good actions rest on
the assumption that the only morally good actions are those that are done from morally good
motives. Right implies moral value though it is ambiguous in definition because what is right for
A may not be right for B. this is why this research is on the moral principles of rightness,
goodness and wrongness as to explicate these terms and appreciate the usage for the betterment
of the society. This is why the researcher is of the view that the ultimate reason why some acts
are right is because it is in a certain sense good.

METHODOLOGY

In this research, the researcher shall adopt the method of analysis in the quest to philosophically
analyze W.D Ross ethical principles, there by bringing out its relevance for societal
development.

RESULTS

From the philosophical method of analysis of W.D Ross ethical principles, it will be inferred that
the moral principles of rightness and goodness need to be inculcated in the minds of the people.
This will make the society a very livable and peaceful community to stay. Every person will
know the moral principle of “do good and avoid bad” life. This means that we are obliged to do
good to ourselves and others. Ross made it clear that a great part of duty consist in an observance
of the rights and a furtherance of the interests of the others. Not minding whatever the cost may
be. However, Ross’s realism has the consequence that if there are no value properties in the
world, that is, if there are no objective values, then all of our value judgments will be mistaken.
CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS:

Ross’s argument on rightness and goodness of actions will create a very positive instinct in man.
Especially his idea on Prima-Facie duties, it will make an impact on the individuals in our
society by wakening up the dogmatic slumberness of consciousness. The conscious mind will
always be awake and alert to the positive principles of moral goodness. The moral decadence in
the society is becoming unbearable; this is because many do not know what values and norms are
all about. Many people are highly influenced by peer pressure and bad westernization. But when
these Ross’s principles are inculcated in them as guiding principle, I belief they will turn back
and embrace the moral principles and ethical norms of prima-facie duties so as to make a better
society for the benefit of all.
 References

1. David Copp. (ed), “The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory” (New York: Oxford
University Press) 2006.
2. Philip Stratton-Lake (ed), “W.D. Ross The Right and The Good” (New York: Clarendon
Press) 2007.
3. William David Ross, “Foundations of Ethics” (New York: Oxford University Press)
1951.
4. Christopher Janaway, (ed)“Arthur Schopenhauer The Two Fundamental Problems of
Ethics” (New York: Cambridge University Press) 2009.
5. Gilbert Harman, “The Nature of Morality: An Introduction to ethics” (New York: Oxford
University Press) 1977.
6. Istvan P. Bejczy. (ed), “ Virtues Ethics in The Middle Ages Commentaries on Aristotle’s
Nicomachean Ethics, 1200-2015” (Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,
publishers)2008.
7. Rem B. Edwards, “A Criticism of Ross's Hypothetical 'I Can' (Mind, New Series,
Vol. 69, No. 273 (Jan., 1960), pp. 80-83.
8. Henry S. Richardson; Beyond Good and Right: Toward a Constructive Ethical
Pragmatism Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), pp. 108-141
9. William David Ross (1877—1971) http: www.iep.utm.edu/ross-wd accessed 21/07/2015.
10. Richard Robinson, The Right And The Good. International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 41,
No. 3 (Apr., 1931), pp. 343-351
11. W.D. Ross’s Moral Theory; http: www.people.umass.edu accessed 20/8/15.
12. A Simple and Usable (Although Incomplete) Ethical Theory Based on the Ethics of W.D.
Ross; http:www.people.wku.edu accessed 26/7/15.
13. W. D. Ross's Moral Theory Ross's criticisms of consequentialist moral theories;
http:www.hu.mtu.edu.htm accessed 13/7/15
14. Peter Schaber; Ethical Pluralism. http:www.ethik.uzh.Chafepublikationen

Schaber_Pluralism.pdf accessed 15/8.15.

15. S. S. S. Browne; Independent Questions in Ethical Theories. The Philosophical Review,

Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr., 1952), pp. 188-197.
16. Thomas Iwand; Nature and Significance of Ethical Theory. The Journal of General
Education, Vol. 18, No. 4 (January 1967), pp. 267-280.
17. And others.