tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post3972801835547204459..comments2022-03-24T15:14:12.561+00:00Comments on Inter Kant: W.D. Ross and prima facie dutiesGary Banhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-45198286167040162932010-02-12T11:50:37.899+00:002010-02-12T11:50:37.899+00:00Thanks again for your comment. I can understand th...Thanks again for your comment. I can understand the claim you are making since Ross does certainly lean towards particularism. I haven't made my mind up yet how far his leaning in that direction should be understood to go but may return to this in future postings. I am far from a Ross scholar myself but I am trying to tease out certain questions from him due to his appearance in certain recent writings about Kant and work through by this means a certain kind of response to Kantian ethics. As I indicated before this will take quite a few postings to get anywhere. I agree though about the interest of Frankena. His now somewhat neglected book on ethics has some very interesting material in it!Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-39664511034005330382010-02-11T22:38:31.859+00:002010-02-11T22:38:31.859+00:00Yes, maybe I should have waited to post a comment ...Yes, maybe I should have waited to post a comment till I read the newer posts. I also think I should read S.L. now. I'm not really a specialist in ethics, but I teach intro to ethics a lot, and have a certain appreciation for Ross.<br /><br />I think there's a way to resolve my claim that Ross' prima facie duties are actual duties with his claim that pf duties are not actual duties but only related to them. I think it has to do with pf duties being general but Ross believes that all real duties are particular. (Although this could be a controversial reading on my part. I'm not a Ross scholar).<br /><br />I look forward to reading more. I think it is very important to 'move beyond' or 'complicate' the telelogical/deontological divide. I think this will also perhaps help complicate or move beyond the justice/benevolence divide (although I'm not sure how). I think Frankena also has a lot to say about this, as well as Ross. Many thanks again!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828192588229854011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-59185224886930785092010-02-11T22:28:58.057+00:002010-02-11T22:28:58.057+00:00Hi Mark, thanks for your comment and your general ...Hi Mark, thanks for your comment and your general support for this blog. <br /><br />You raise two points that I'd like to take separately. First, the preference for speaking of prima facie duties as *pro tanto*. You are right that a lot of people now speak of prima facie duties this way but I agree with Philip Stratton-Lake here who argues that the problem with this way of speaking is that it reinforces the impression that what is being picked out is a special kind of duty whereas Ross argues that prima facie duties are not really duties at all but stand in a certain special relationship to duties. Further postings after this one explore this notion (not entirely in agreement with Stratton-Lake) but the point would generally be that this is not mainly a way of speaking about "duty" itself.<br /><br />The second point concerns the need for consequence-sensitivity. Ross does discuss something like this notion I think in relation to attention to situations such that we find what is "fitting" in them. Again, this is detailed a bit more in later postings. But I understand the point that this shouldn't be to push Ross towards consequentialism since that would produce a reading of his work that would be peculiar. In a sense I am trying to undertake these readings of Ross as a way of moving past the teleology/deontology divide or at least complicating it. But it will take sometime to worth that through!Gary Banhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08518731833160149460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3983293735571319877.post-70432119586670292992010-02-11T22:06:34.688+00:002010-02-11T22:06:34.688+00:00Many thanks for your post and your blog in general...Many thanks for your post and your blog in general, which I've appreciated since you started.<br /><br />A minor point: I thought that scholars now are starting to accept that what Ross meant by 'prima facie' duty is actually that of a 'pro tanto' duty, namely, one that must be done unless it conflicts with another p.t. duty. Ross' theory, in a nutshell (at least as I teach it), is that one must perform ALL of one's pro tanto duties, unless they conflict. When they do conflict one must use intuition, reflection, etc. to determine which of the pt duties to fulfill, and which to not. At least in the _Right and the Good_, Ross is very concerned to eliminate teleology from his account of resolving conflict between duties. <br />So I was a bit surprised when you interpret him as involving consequences so readily.<br /><br />In a couple of places, you say e.g....<br />"So the notion of prima facie is introduced as a way of speaking about consequence-sensitivity"<br />and<br />"So the prima facie duties are ones that we would, were it not for other intervening factors (involving consequence-sensitivity) ..."<br />The 'so's indicate an inference from what has gone before, but I don't see it. I thought that Ross thinks that we have many pro tanto duties, and one of them is to help preserve an innocent life, when one can and is not endangering one's own life, as well as a pt duty to keep one's promises (e.g. to meet them for lunch). On Ross's reading, the decision to save the person and miss lunch is not about the consequences. It is that the duty of preserving a life is more incumbent or more important than keeping that particular promise. <br /><br />Maybe he can't really explain how this duty is more incumbent without referring to the consequences, but I don't see yet how he HAS to. I think Ross would prefer to cash out the duty to save the life in more Kantian terms than teleological ones.<br /><br />Many thanks...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828192588229854011noreply@blogger.com