Introduction
Ross creates a moral concept for determining the rightness of action, which includes criticism of previous approaches. Ross criticizes Kant, proving the inconsistency of his concept in practice. Successful arguments include revealing all the important characteristics and context that Kant does not mention. To understand the nature of Ross’ criticism, it is necessary to consider his moral concept and the main provisions of Kant’s theory. By revealing the emotional component and evaluating the future effect and the context of each specific situation, Ross successfully critiques Kant’s concept of the moral imperative; however, Ross’ own theory lacks practicality.
Ross’ Ethical Theory
Ross makes a significant contribution to the development of moral theory about obligations, duty, and the ethical validity of choice. Ross talks about several moral obligations based on common sense. The scientist developed seven categories of what he called prima facie duties while recognizing that a person’s actual moral duties depend on relationships and context (Ross 20). According to Ross, the severity of the debt is important when two moral obligations seem to contradict each other (Ross 22). It is pluralistic in the sense that Ross believed that people have multiple moral obligations. Ross rightly acknowledges that human obligations can be canceled in certain situations.
Ross’s theory is based on a set of categories; the actual responsibilities in any particular situation will depend on relationships and other aspects of the specific context of each individual situation. The main categories of human prima facie duties, according to Ross, include loyalty, keeping promises, keeping agreements, telling the truth, recompense, and gratitude (Ross 22). Ross also recognizes that people have a responsibility to make lives better for other people (Ross 23). From this list of prima facie duties, a person can determine what the real duties in a particular situation are. Morally meaningful relationships help people see real responsibility. The weight of duty is also important: the obligation to protect life is stronger than the obligation to tell the truth, and therefore, lying to save life is an actual duty in such a situation.
The moral concept of Ross turns out to be well applicable in reality for assessing the correctness of certain actions. This is the main difference from Kant’s moral concept, which does not give any specific recommendations for behavior. Ross criticizes Kant for being categorical and not taking into account the context of each specific situation (Ross 23). Ross’ criticism is effective and correctly highlights the shortcomings of Kant’s moral theory.
Kant’s Moral Theory
According to Kant, morality should not be considered a way to achieve a certain goal since, in this case, morality acquires a pragmatic character. Moral requirements for a person cannot be reduced to certain prescriptions that indicate the most effective way to achieve the goal (Borges 10). The goal is not always moral and, therefore, cannot justify an immoral act. On the contrary, it is not the goal that justifies the moral obligation, but morality recognizes certain goals as positive on the basis of the obligation.
The duty, from the point of view of Kant, has priority over value in morality. Moral requirements are universal and apply to all people; everyone must be aware of the need to perform certain actions for proper behavior (Borges 9). An act can be normative and appropriate from the point of view of its content, but if it is not done out of goodwill but because of external necessity, it cannot be considered moral, much less proper. Only the free will of the individual makes an act moral.
Moral activity must be carried out in accordance with a certain principle. Kant’s ethical views are distinguished by a certain radicalism since he believed that the imperatives formulated by him command unconditionally, regardless of the result of the activity (Borges 7). Moreover, these moral laws force a person to be distracted from the result of activity and focus on motivation (Borges 6). Duty is, in its essence, an absolute requirement that must be followed unconditionally.
Determination of the Correctness of Actions and the Failure of Kant’s Theory
In What Makes Right Things Right, Ross seeks to find out what makes an action right or wrong and whether such a criterion even exists. The concept that an action is considered morally justified if it brings maximum satisfaction seems untenable to Ross (Ross 35). The attempt to show that pleasure is the only good in itself is out of place in the attempt to prove the rightness of action. When people keep a promise because they feel they have to, they seem to do it without considering all the consequences, without considering the best possible outcome. In fact, people in this situation think about the past, not about the future (Ross 37). They make a promise in the past, and all that makes them keep it is the events in the past; this obligation is a debt in simulated circumstances. These are things that are usually the prima facie duties.
Ross considers two theories, each simple in its own way, that offer a solution to morally ambiguous cases. One of them is Kant’s view that there are certain duties of a perfect obligation, such as keeping promises, paying debts, and truthfulness, which allow no exceptions (Ross 18). Another point of view is that there is only an obligation to do good and that all conflicts should be resolved in favor of the maximum good (Ross 18). The theory suggests that the only morally relevant attitude is that actions can be beneficial. According to Ross, both of these theories oversimplify human relationships. Ross suggests that prior theories ignore the highly personal nature of debt (Ross 19). If the only human duty is to produce the maximum good, the question is who should receive and value that good.
An important point in determining the correctness of an action is the characteristic that is embedded in it. If, as almost all moralists except Kant agree, people sometimes think it right to lie or break a promise, then it must be argued that there is a difference between a prima facie duty and an actual or absolute duty (Ross 25). People must distinguish between the characteristics of duty and the desire to fulfill it. For example, by virtue of being a breach of promise, it tends to be wrong; by virtue of being an example of the relief of suffering, it tends to be correct.
Human judgments about real duties in specific situations have nothing to do with the certainty associated with the recognition of general principles of duty. When a possible action is seen as having two characteristics, one of which is prima facie right and the other prima facie wrong, people must take moral hazard (Ross 22). In this respect, judging the correctness of this or that act is exactly like judging the beauty of this or that natural object or work of art. Thus, the concept of a legal act as an action that it is reasonable to regard as one’s duty is an unsatisfactory compromise between the true idea of the right thing to do and the notion of a morally good thing to do.
Ross notes that the general principles of duty are not self-evident from the very beginning of life. They become self-evident, like mathematical axioms, in the course of life and with the experience of communication (Ross 29). People see the original rightness of an action that would be the fulfillment of one promise and another that would be the fulfillment of another promise. Thus, there arises an awareness of a self-evident root cause, the seeming legitimacy of a particular act of a certain kind.
There are always many elements in the nature of any action on which its rightness or wrongness depends, and not one element in its nature can be discarded without being considered indifferent. Good can be objectively quantified, but people cannot accurately determine its quantitative measure. There is no obvious connection between the attributes correct and optimal (Ross 30). A person’s confidence that this is apparently right does not depend on the consequences but on whether this is the fulfillment of a promise. The theory involves too much difference between the seemingly prima facie basis for believing in debt and the supposed basis for condemning actual debt.
Ross comes to the conclusion that the moral convictions of thinking and educated people are data of ethics, just as sense perceptions are data of natural science. The existing set of moral convictions of the best people is the cumulative product of the moral reflection of many generations that have developed an extremely subtle ability to evaluate moral differences (Ross 41). The verdicts of the moral consciousness of the best people of humanity are the foundation for determining the moral and ethical justification for the correctness of actions.
The Summary of Kant’s Criticism
Criticism of the moral and ethical theory of Kant by Ross is based on several fundamental provisions. Ross notes that Kant’s ethics has no practical indications, being absolutely formal (Ross 22). If a person is guided by the ethics of Kant to make a decision, they will not find any practical applications. Ross, in this matter, calls to be guided by the obligations taken in the context and awareness of the future consequences of this or that action. Kant is one of the few philosophers who does not recognize the possibility of lying for good (Ross 25). Ross completely rejects Kant’s categoricalness in this regard, arguing that one must always take into account the context of any action.
According to Kant, action inspired by emotions should be wrong. Every action must be performed solely for the motive of duty. An activity carried out with some kind of feeling, however sublime or exalted, is immoral, according to Kant (Borges 36). Ross believes that this approach greatly simplifies all human relationships (Ross 25). Emotions must be taken into account when approaching the determination of the rightness or wrongness of actions. Ross insists on the multiple nature of actions, which include several aspects. Emotions must also be taken into account. Otherwise, the approach to the definition of ethics will not be complete (Ross 25). Ross rightly notes that Kant’s ethics are too categorical and poorly applied in practice.
The Effectiveness of Critics Attempt
Ross criticizes Kant with strong arguments against the theory of the moral imperative. Kant’s theory turns out to be untenable because it is indispensable in practice. Ross lists important components of the definition of duty and moral obligations that Kant misses in his definition: the characteristics that people give to moral categories, the emotional component, the general context, and the future outcome of events (Ross). Ross describes each component in succession, proving that Kant’s concept remains theoretical and cannot be used as a basis for choice.
Ross is successful in criticizing Kant’s moral and ethical theory. After reading the theory of Ross and his definition of the decision on the moral justification of actions, his concept is much more justified and practically applicable. Rejecting the concept of action as an achievement of the good and the theory of the moral imperative, Ross does not come to unambiguous conclusions. He concludes that people should rely on the experience of previous thinkers and their conclusions in determining the correctness of actions (Ross 41). However, Ross does not provide specific guidance, and his own theory lacks practicality.
Conclusion
Ross turns out to be successful in criticizing Kant and emphasizes his categoricalness and the inapplicability of his theory in practice. Ross argues his point of view by gradually revealing the characteristics that Kant misses when discussing the nature of duty and the rightness of action. Despite effective criticism of Kant’s ethics, Ross’s theory also lacks practicality. The philosopher successfully discusses the nature of debt, revealing all the necessary components, but the concept lacks guidelines for actions that could be used in practice.
Work Cited
Borges, Maria de Lourdes. Emotion, reason and action in Kant. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.
Ross, William David. The right and the good. United Kingdom, Clarendon Press, 2002.