Ross and the particularism/generalism divide

Abstract

W. D. Ross is commonly considered to be a generalist about prima facie duty but a particularist about absolute duty. That is, many philosophers hold that Ross accepts that there are true moral principles involving prima facie duty but denies that there are any true moral principles involving absolute duty. I agree with the former claim: Ross surely accepts prima facie moral principles. However, in this paper, I challenge the latter claim. Ross, I argue, is no more a particularist about absolute duty than a utilitarian or a Kantian is. While this conclusion is interesting in its own right, it is also important, I argue, because it prevents us from overlooking Ross’s criterion of moral obligation and because it may have implications on the broader debate between particularists and generalists.

An Ethical Analysis Regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Oral Healthcare in Patients with Mental Disorders

“…However, the approach may need to be tailored to the patient’s physical and mental health conditions, social factors, and individual traits. Although truthful communication is typically expected by healthcare providers, conflicts may arise when certain values are at odds [ 41 ]. One such scenario that can be difficult for dentists is when a patient lacks the ability to make decisions, which may occur in those experiencing mental health disorders [ 42 ].…”

Conflicts and Challenges of Truth-Telling in Dentistry: A Case-Based Ethical Analysis

“…This framework, based on the ethical theory of "a prima facie duty," can help achieve appropriate responses in moral conflicts. “At first glance,” truth-telling is a prima facie duty that appears to be what professionals should do without considering any other factors, but actual or real duty is only one morally justified duty in any situation; however, the actual duty may not always be obvious, particularly when duties conflict ( 14 ). Numerous articles have been published on truth-telling in the medical field, but in dentistry, we found a knowledge gap in this respect.…”

The Right Wrong‐Makers

“…[R]ight acts can be distinguished from wrong acts only as being those which, of all those possible for the agent in the circumstances, have the greatest balance of prima facie rightness, in those respects in which they are prima facie right, over their prima facie wrongness, in those respects in which they are prima facie wrong." Olsen (2014) argues on the basis of the quoted passage that Ross should be understood as a generalist rather than a particularist. But even if one doubts this---say on the grounds that we lack any sort of general formula for how to weigh the different prima facie duties against each other---it's hard to see why this should make any difference to my subsequent arguments.…”