Deck 9: The Ethic of Prima Facie Duties

Question 1

Talk about:
-Absolutist theories

Answer 1

those that endorse the idea that there are absolute moral rules (those that are never permissibly broken).

Question 2

Talk about:
-Monistic theories

Answer 2

those that endorse the idea that there is just a single ultimate moral rule.

Question 3

Talk about:
-Prima facie duty

Answer 3

an excellent, non-absolute, permanent reason to do (or refrain from) something.

Question 4

Write an essay describing the central features of Ross's ethic of prima facie duties. Define the notion of a prima facie duty and explain how a moral theory based on prima facie duties differs from monistic and absolutist moral theories.

Question 5

What do you think is the biggest advantage of the ethic of prima facie duties? Explain why it has this advantage and why some competing ethical theories do not. Is this a sufficient reason to accept Ross's theory or not? Defend your answer.

Question 6

According to Ross, how can we come to know the fundamental moral rules? Do you think that this is a legitimate way to come to know moral truths? If so, explain why. If not, explain what you think is a more viable alternative.

Question 7

According to Ross, what should we do when our prima facie duties conflict? Do you think that this is a serious problem for his view? Why or why not?

Question 8

Write an essay discussing Ross's list of seven prima facie duties. Do you think his list is accurate and complete? Why or why not? If you were to create your own list of prima facie duties, what would be on it?

Question 9

Ross thinks the correct moral theory is

A) utilitarianism.
B) egoism.
C) Kant's theory.
D) None of the above

Question 10

According to Ross, a prima facie duty is a

A) morally significant feature of an act that may be overridden by other such features.
B) moral rule that it is never permissible to break.
C) feature of an act that appears morally significant but turns out not to be.
D) fundamental moral rule from which all others are derived.

Question 11

Ross claims that prima facie duties are

A) self-evident.
B) known through experience.
C) unknowable.
D) innate.

Question 12

According to Ross, the data from which we should construct ethical theories are

A) the testimony of moral philosophers.
B) the moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people.
C) our sensory experiences.
D) logical principles.

Question 13

Ross thinks that we sometimes feel regret even when we have done the right thing because sometimes

A) right action requires violating one's prima facie duties.
B) we fail to maximize utility when doing the right thing.
C) doing the right thing makes us worse off.
D) we do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Question 14

According to Ross, how can we know what to do when two prima facie duties conflict?

A) By calculating the consequences of our options
B) By consulting religious texts
C) Neither a nor b, the answer is self-evident.
D) Neither a nor b, there is no definite way to know what to do in such situations.

Question 15

According to Ross, how do the general principles of duty become self-evident?

A) Through experiencing sufficiently many instances of right and wrong action
B) Through studying philosophy
C) Through learning mathematics
D) They are self-evident from birth.

Question 16

Ross objects to utilitarianism because it does not consider obligations created by

A) promises.
B) family relationships.
C) favors others have done in the past.
D) All of the above

Question 17

What objection does Ross raise to Kant's theory?

A) It is impossible to apply.
B) It demands too much of us.
C) It does not allow for the fact that it is sometimes permissible to break promises.
D) All of the above

Question 18

What is the difference between a prima facie duty and a duty proper?

A) Prima facie duties can be overridden; duties proper cannot.
B) Duties proper can be overridden; prima facie duties cannot.
C) Prima facie duties are not actually morally relevant factors; duties proper are.
D) Duties proper are not actually morally relevant factors; prima facie duties are.

Question 19

How does Ross think we can come to know our prima facie duties? What do you think is the strongest objection one might have to Ross's account of how we come to have moral knowledge? Can Ross's view overcome this objection? Why or why not?

Question 20

Explain the concept of a prima facie duty and describe how it differs from a duty proper. Why does Ross think that the duties he mentions are only prima facie duties? Do you find his arguments convincing? Is an ethical theory based on prima facie duties preferable to other sorts of ethical theory? Why or why not?

Question 21

Explain Ross's objections to either utilitarianism or Kant's ethics. How would a defender of that theory respond to Ross's objections? Ultimately, who do you think is right? Defend your response.

Question 22

Case Study
Kim is a celebrated author at the end of her life. On her deathbed she is visited by her protégé, Marco. Kim says that she feels a sense of fulfilment and completion looking back her on life, apart from one regret. She never published her favorite collection of essays, one that she has kept hidden for years. She tells Marco where to find the collection and asks him to promise that he will submit the essays (just as they are) to her publisher after she dies. He promises her that he will.
After Kim's death, Marco retrieves the collection of essays to fulfill his promise to Kim. When he reads them, he discovers that they are full of scandalous and shameful personal details about the lives of other famous authors, many of whom are still alive. Marco knows that if the collection is published, the people discussed in the essays will be publicly shamed and their reputations forever tarnished. He feels unsure about whether to send the essays to Kim's publisher after all.
-What duties are in conflict in Marco's ethical dilemma? Is there any way for him to simultaneously honor the conflicting duties?

Question 23

Case Study
Kim is a celebrated author at the end of her life. On her deathbed she is visited by her protégé, Marco. Kim says that she feels a sense of fulfilment and completion looking back her on life, apart from one regret. She never published her favorite collection of essays, one that she has kept hidden for years. She tells Marco where to find the collection and asks him to promise that he will submit the essays (just as they are) to her publisher after she dies. He promises her that he will.
After Kim's death, Marco retrieves the collection of essays to fulfill his promise to Kim. When he reads them, he discovers that they are full of scandalous and shameful personal details about the lives of other famous authors, many of whom are still alive. Marco knows that if the collection is published, the people discussed in the essays will be publicly shamed and their reputations forever tarnished. He feels unsure about whether to send the essays to Kim's publisher after all.
-What is the morally right thing for Marco to do in this case? Is there just one morally permissible course of action?