The Piece Was Based On The Theory "What Makes Right Acts Right" (Essay Sample)

Name
Professor
Title
Date
“What Makes Right Acts Right”
Act-utilitarianism posits that as long as any action results in the best consequences, then it can be justified. This theory supports the notion that sometimes it is morally right to tell lies and break promises. Suppose we agree with utilitarianism that not keeping a promise and lying is at times morally permissible, would we still consider it as too permissive in this regard? William David Ross holds the view that there is a strong moral presumption against lying and breaking promises independent of utilitarian considerations. His theory is arguably one of the major ethical theories and, indeed, one of the closest to people’s reasonable moral beliefs.
Ross’s theory regarding what is wrong or right is predicated on his notion of prima facie obligation or prima facie duty. He argues that prima facie duty is a means of referring to the characteristic of a particular action. It thus considers a duty to proper if it did not happen at the same time as another morally important obligation. He further suggests that there should be a difference maintained between the actual duty and prima facie duty if all moralists agreed.
He has defined prima facie duty as a concept reflecting one’s actual duty – that which one must perform when all things considered. This notion can be clearly understood by perceiving an obligation duty as an actual moral duty regardless of existing reasons. Ross has used the term conditional duty at times to stand for prima facie. This concept means one’s actual duty having the condition that it will not conflict another prima facie duty that carries a higher or equal weight.
According to Ross, one has a prima duty not to tell a lie, which implies that there exists a moral presumption against telling a lie. He further suggests that it is, however, morally permissible to lie sometimes, even when considering obligatory duty. My understanding of this arguments is that it would be morally permissible to tell a lie when your prima facie duty conflicts with an equally or more important obligatory duty. Sometimes, people are faced with the dilemma of determining whether an action is morally right or else wrong. Ross has suggested that in such a situation, we have to consider in all respects which action is prima facie wrong and prima facie right. He further considers that for an action to be morally right, it must fulfill the condition that of all possible actions for a person in such a circumstance, one will choose that whose obligation of rightness in its own respect of right outweighs its obligation of wrongness in its respect of being prima facie wrong.
Ross has proposed a list of eight prima facie duties, but he does claim finality or completeness in regards to the duties. He starts with the duty of keeping promise, where he argues that when one makes a promise, he or she effectively creates a duty that did not exist previously. Making a promise is therefore placing oneself in a relationship with another person – an association that specifies one has a new duty to the other. He then suggests of the duty not to tell a lie. According to Ross, a duty not to tell lie is like a special case to the keeping of a promise. He goes on to suggest that a duty to refrain from lying does not entirely mean a duty to give the truth or correct information. His argument thus seems to propose that it is possible to lie without committing any violation to prima facie duty.
He also lists the duty of making amends with people one has caused harm to. Ross also introduces a notion of the duty of gratitude. He believes that if a person assists another, then one has an obligation to help the other perform in return. In other words, he presents reciprocity as a critical driver of societal interactions. The next item in his list is the duty of distributing happiness according to merit. Ross suggests that we have an obligation of upsetting the distribution of merit if good people are sad and bad people are finding happiness.
Ross also talks about a duty of doing things that benefit others, and, in this respect, he suggests giving others pleasure, knowledge, or improving their moral character. He also highlights the duties of improving our self-intellect as well as moral characters and the obligation not to cause harm to others.
Applying this theory in our routine lives requires one to know when a respective conditional duty carries more weight than the other. The theorist believes that the duty not to harm others is more important than the duty to avail help to others. This implies that with all things equal, it would be morally wrong to help someone while at the same time causing harm to someone else.
Ross suggests that telling lies and breaking promises represents a prima facie wrong. He also submits that the duties of fidelity, which are the obligations not to break a promise or lie, are stringent. He tends to think that it is wrong when we lie and break a promise so as to realiz...