William David argues that there are objective moral truths

- Objectives moral truths exist in reality

- However, he claims that something is good only if that thing is really good, thus, the concept of
right and good plays an important role in his philosophy
- For ross, rightness and goodness are the only moral properties
- Rightness and goodness are indefinable; irreducible objective qualities
- Cannot be defined
- We can make sense of what rightness and goodness are through their physical manifestation
- For ross, there is no such thing as absolute goodness; goodness depends on a specific situation
- He contends that rightness = act; goodness = motive; but rightness is not identical to the act per
se, as goodness is not identical to motive
How do we know the rightness of a act and goodness of its motive?
-According to ross, we need to determine the non-moral properties or circumstances that surrounds the
act itself

- As a non-consequentialist, maximizing the good is only one of the several prima facie duties that
guide the individual in determining what she ought to doin a given situation
Ross’s moral philosophy hinges also:
Prima facie duty and actual duty
1 refers to conditional duty
2 unconditional duty – one’s duty proper; moral obligation
-the most stringent duty

When conflict of duties arises, we ought to to act the prima facie duty which has a greater balance of
rightness over wrongness

How do we know that one is more of a duty than the other?

- First, ross believes that one and only one of the prima facie duties is our actual duty
- We can absolutely have the right opinion about which is more of a duty because it is always self
evident (intuition)

Ross is considered as an intuitionist

Actual duty appears to be self evident

Seven basic types of prima facie duties:

1. Duty of fidelity – our duty to be faithful or loyal to a worthy cause
2. Reparation – our duty to. Right the wrongs we have done to others
3. Gratitude – appreciate and recognize the services have done to us
4. Justice – to be fair with everyone
5. Beneficence – to do good towards others; help others
6. Self improvement – to improve one’s self worth respect to virtue intelligence happiness
7. Non maleficence –not to inflict evil, injury, or harm to one’s self and others

1. Ross was a deontologist.  He considered duty as a basis for morality.  However, he also knew the fact
that Kant failed to provide solutions regarding cases of conflicting duties.  At the same time, Ross knew
that the problem in Kantian ethics is its too much focus on the means of an act without consideration to
the consequence of the said act.
2. Ross was also a utilitarian.  He understood the importance of considering the good consequence of
doing particular actions.  However, he also knew the fact that too much focus on the consequence of
action without due consideration to the means in doing an action would not necessarily mean that the
action is already morally acceptable. 
3. He attempted to reconcile the deontologist from the utilitarian principle by saying that the basis of
moral action is not only the duty or not only the consequence but the duty and the consequence of an
action combined.  Hence, he held that the basis of morality is the RIGHT action/means and a GOOD
consequence /end combined.
4. In order to solve the problem of Kant regarding cases of conflicting duties, William David Ross
suggested the two types of duties (1) the actual duty, which is our real duty in a given situation; and (2)
the prima facie duty, which is the duty at first glance.
5. Ross enumerated the 7 types of prima facie duties (please see the book

The beauty of the philosophy of William David Ross was that he was able to recognize the strengths as
well as the weaknesses of William David Ross.  However, later on, some critiques of William David Ross
were able to recognize that his philosophy has also developed certain weaknesses especially in the
discussion of the actual and the prima facie duty.  Determining the actual duty in a given situation is still
left in the hands of those who will be making a decision.  Inasmuch as not everybody has the capability
of making a sound decision, it will still be difficult to recognize the actual duty.  At the same time, the
recognition of the actual duty is going to become subjective because people may have different points
of view as regards which among the duty in a given situation will become the more stringent and the
more severe.  Hence, this will fall again to the problem of ethical relativism.