Comparison of Ross and Kant’s Ethical Theories

W.D. Ross, a very prominent figure in the 20th-century deontological ethics field who introduced a very special viewpoint called the deontological pluralism. Unlike many other monistic theories that highly prioritize one singular moral principle, Ross’s deontological pluralism recognizes multiple fundamental moral principles, each of which captures a very significant aspect of our moral experience. Central to Ross’s ethical framework is the concept of prima facie duties. These duties, like fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, and self-improvement, are not absolute but a bit conditional, holding unless they conflict with an equal or stronger duty. In such cases of conflict, one duty becomes a very absolute duty, which Ross defines as the duty that one is ultimately obliged to perform in a very particular situation. This distinction between prima facie and absolute duties allows for some flexibility and a bit of nuance in moral decision-making, accommodating the complex and often conflicting demands of our moral life. Ross’s ethical theory, therefore, offers a pretty rich and multifaceted approach to deontological ethics, balancing the rigidness of absolute duties with the diversity of prima facie duties (Saylor Academy).

Immanuel Kant, a very central figure in moral philosophy, proposed a deontological ethical theory that places the emphasis on duty and moral law. At the heart of Kant’s ethical theory is the Categorical Imperative, a principle that very much requires us to act only according to those maxims that we could will to become a very universal law! This imperative is very categorical because it is very unconditional and applies universally, regardless of one’s desires or personal circumstances. Kant’s concept of duty is quite closely tied to this imperative. For Kant, a morally right action is one performed out of a sense of duty and respect for the moral law, not because of what it can achieve. Furthermore, Kant introduced the concept of goodwill, which he considered the only thing that is pretty good without any qualification. A goodwill is really good in itself and not because of what it produces or achieves. It is the will to do one’s duty for the sake of duty itself, guided maybe by the Categorical Imperative. Thus, Kant’s ethical theory presents a robust framework for moral decision-making, grounded in duty, moral law, and goodwill (Westacott).

Comparison

When comparing and contrasting the ethical theories of W.D. Ross and Immanuel Kant, some key differences and similarities emerge. Both Ross and Kant advocate for deontological ethics, which a very much emphasizes duty as the basis for moral action. However, while Kant’s theory is monistic, focusing on a single moral principle encapsulated in the Categorical Imperative, Ross’s theory is pluralistic, recognizing multiple prima facie duties that capture various aspects of our moral experience. The concept of duty in both theories also differs significantly. For Kant, duty is absolute and derived from the Categorical Imperative. An action is morally right if it can be willed as a universal law, regardless of its consequences. On the other hand, Ross’s concept of prima facie duties is more flexible. These duties are quite conditional and can either be overridden by more pressing duties in a given situation. Thus, Ross’s theory allows for a more nuanced approach to moral decision-making, accommodating the complexity of real-world ethical dilemmas (“Chapter 7: Deontological Ethics (Kant and Ross) – Lucid Philosophy”).

Despite these differences, both Ross and Kant view the role of duty as very central to ethical decisions. For Kant, moral worth is determined by the motive of duty, while for Ross, the right action is guided by a balance of duties. Thus, while their theories diverge in significant ways, both philosophers really underscore the importance of duty in guiding moral action. This comparison highlights the richness and diversity of deontological ethics, offering various perspectives on how we ought to maybe navigate our moral lives.

In the end, both W.D. Ross and Immanuel Kant have made quite significant contributions to deontological ethics, athough with distinct approaches. Ross’s deontological pluralism recognizes multiple prima facie duties, offering a nuanced and flexible approach to moral decision-making. In contrast, Kant’s monistic deontology, anchored in the Categorical Imperative, provides a universal and absolute framework for ethical conduct. Despite their differences, both philosophers underscore the importance of duty in ethical decisions.

Work Cited

“Chapter 7: Deontological Ethics (Kant and Ross) – Lucid Philosophy.” Lucid Philosophy, 3 Nov. 2016, lucidphilosophy.com/869-2.

“Immanuel Kant: Ethics.” Obo, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0225.xml.

Saylor Academy. “Deontological Ethics: Ross’s Deontological Pluralism | Saylor Academy.” Saylor Academy, learn.saylor.org/mod/book/view.php?id=30508&chapterid=7041.

Westacott, Emrys. “Moral Philosophy According to Immanuel Kant.” ThoughtCo, 31 Aug. 2019, www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Comparison of Ross and Kant’s Ethical Theories

W.D. Ross (1877-1971) was perhaps the most influential 20th century advocate of
deontological ethics. Although influenced by both Mill and Kant, Ross was neither a
utilitarian nor a strict Kantian. In this journal entry you will provide a chapter summary
of the attached excerpt from Ross\' The Right and the Good. Explain the position that
Ross develops and compare and contrast it with Kant\'s ethical theory.
To view the reading click here: W.D. Ross- What Makes Acts Right(1).pdf Download W.D.
Ross- What Makes Acts Right(1).pdf

This assignment will be evaluated on the following basis:
1. Clarity of expression.
2. Cogency of presentation.
3. Depth of engagement with the subject matter.
4. Creativity/originality.
5. Spelling and Grammar.
The assignment should be 500-750 words (or more).