Prima Facie Duties

Problems with Kant: Leads to Real (Strong) Moral Dilemmas

A Real Moral Dilemma is one in which there is no morally correct resolution. No mater what one does, one has done something wrong. (This is to be distinguished from apparent moral dilemmas which are simply situations in which determining the morally correct thing to do is difficult.

For Kant, since ALL DUTIES are absolute, one can frequently find oneself in situations where one ought to two things, but one cannot do those two things. (e.g. Honor the promise to meet one’s friend for lunch and save a drowning child one happens to see on the way to lunch.) There is no correct resolution since no matter what one does, one would violate the Categorical Imperative. Now, a moral theory that results in frequent real (strong) moral dilemmas has got to have something wrong with it. It’s impractical, especially if you think the whole point of a moral theory is to tell us what we ought to do (action guiding). But it also suggests theoretical problems as well because most have a strong intuition that a correct moral theory would always direct action.

3 Objections to Real (strong) Moral Dilemmas:

Logical:

“Ought” implies “can.” Therefore, there is no such thing as an impossible obligation. Any moral theory which says otherwise is false.

Intuitive Moral:

We readily "see" that not all obligations are equal serious or binding. Any moral theory which says otherwise is false.

Practical:

Morality is about providing action guiding behavior. A moral theory which allows for the possibility/actuality of real moral dilemmas is one which can not guide actions (in those situations at least) and is therefore flawed.

H. A. Prichard (1871-1947) and W. D. Ross (1877-1971) developed deontological views as a basis for criticizing Utilitarianism.

They stress the variety of duties each one of us will have, arising out of our personal relationships and our social position: duties of children to parents and parents to children; duties to our friends, students, fellow-citizens, spouses, teachers, clients, business partners, patients, creditors, employees, etc. etc.

Ross attempts to resolve these problems with Kant while retaining a deotological ethic.

Ross argued that all forms of moral monism (the view that there is only one single morally relevant principle are false. Neither Kantian Deontology nor Utilitarianism capture all that is of moral importance.

Ross barrows a term from Juris Prudence

“Prima Facie Duty”

Note: A prima facie duty is a moral obligation which is initially binding. However, it is not an Absolute duty. That is, while we are obligated to satisfy that duty prima facie, if can be overridden (by a stronger obligation)

Prichard and Ross are intuitionists with regard to moral duties.

Intuitionism: The postistion that some things can be know and even justified by appeals to one’s "intuition." Because of the answer that Prichard and Ross gave to the question of the epistemology of morals, their theory was known as deontological intuitionism.

He claims that we intuitively perceive a set of "prima facie" duties which. These are the basis for our moral judgments.

Moral Judgements:

A Three Step Process:

1. recognize morally relevant factors (via intuition)

2. recognize our prima facie duties (via intuition)

3. arrive at a judgement about our duty proper (via intuition)

In situation where we have competing but mutually exclusive prima facie duties, our ultimate, actual duty is whichever one is strongest.

For example, if my wife asks me whether I think she the dress she bought makes her look fat, I have a prima facie duty to be truthful. However, if it does make her look fat and if I run the risk hurting her feelings by being truthful, my greater obligation is to avoid hurting her (beneficence). While both are duties prima facie, my actual duty is whichever is stronger. (Guess which one I see a more important. Hint: I’ve been married for years.)

Ross lists the following seven foundational prima facie duties:

1. promise keeping

2. reparation for harm done

3. gratitude

4. justice

5. beneficence

6. self-improvement

7. non-maleficence.

4 points of clarification:

1. Moral principles emphasizes the personal character of duty (based on what one actually deserves), unlike utilitarianism which pursues general happiness with minimal consideration of which specific individuals benefit. For instance I might have a greater duty to care for my mother than other women due to my duty of gratitude to her personally. Likewise, I might have no duty to seek the well-being of a child molester due to his personal conduct and character. (This was Kant’s criticism of Utilitarianism.)

2. In fulfilling our duty our motives do not matter. (Notice the stark contrast with Kant on this point.)

3. He acknowledges that the list of duties he offers is not complete, but claims that it is essentially correct.

4. There is no single method to calculate which of our various prima facie duties at a given time is our actual duty. While these duties are of unequal weight and hierarchical, their relation to own another is not fixed but differs in different contexts. Each move from relevant prima facie duties to actual duty is a matter of individual judgement. There can be no general trade-off principles.

5. Some duties are based specifically on the intrinsic goodness of pleasure, (beneficence -regarding others and self-improvement -regarding ourselves). Thus this is a deliberate attempt to blend consequentialist and denotological thinking into a single coherent moral theory. (Justice is founded on the intrinsic goodness of pleasure; the duty of non-maleficence is based on minimizing intrinsic evils (such as unhappiness); reparation is based on making up for harm which has been done. Gratitude is based on beneficence which has been shown to us by others.

We perceive our various prima facie duties by means of a (self-evident) intuition; they cannot be logically deduced nor argued. However, Ross is NOT a relativist. He claims that there are objectively right and wrong resolutions to moral conflicts. Judgments regarding prima facie duties and actual duties may be wrong even though sincerely made.

Near universal assent is best explained by the existence of an objective truth which we come to knowledge.

But...

While moral intuitions are supposed to give us insights into an unchanging universal moral law it must be pointed out there is significant cultural divergence as to moral intuitions. For instance, many raised in the Hindu culture have strong intuitions about the morally obligatory practice of sutti. While others foreign to the culture have equally strong intuitions about the practice being immoral.

Further, even if this intuitionism is correct, so much the worse for moral disputes; there is no rational way to settle such disputes, for according to intuitionists, the beliefs are held for no publicly accessible reason.