I'm wondering to what extent W. D. Ross's theory provides a method for deciding what the right thing to do is in particular situations. I'm also wondering if this extent should be seen as a strength or a weakness.
Well , depends I would think having a closer look is always better than passing a ruling ...
I have a fundamental issue with "divine command theory." In my view, it too easily becomes the ultimate cop-out, license to commit any type of atrocity with impunity.(Too obvious to miss in today's reality, is it not? I'm not going off on some the theoretical limb here.)
Said another way, one can struggle with the notion of prima facie duties, with all of the inherent ambiguities. Then, you throw in this supposed "divine command theory," and voila, all ambiguity is erased. Well, at least among those who claim to know "divine commands." Way too facile. That's why I see it as the ultimate cop-out.
Thanks so much for your answer, Albert! I've never seen prima facie duties linked with divine command theory before the contributors to this thread :) But it raises an issue. I agree with you that divine command theory doesn't work. However, could prima facie duties be conjoined with a divine nature theory of ethics? One could posit in a philosophical vein that God is the greatest conceivable being and is therefore necessarily loving, just, fair, compassionate, and so forth by nature. These facets of God's nature could shine in our intellects in the same way as light shines from the sun, causing us to recognize them as prima facie duties. What do you or others think about this speculative conjunction?
Kirk, yes, I think most living creatures have some measure of acceptance of prima facie duties. In the most general terms, I would suggest that they represent duties performed to further the survival of the species. Or perhaps this might be referred to as acts, even selfless acts, that promote "the greater good."
Looking at this from a scrupulously objective point of view, humans have created a number of religions which, in one way or another, have codified these prima facie duties, even listed them as commandments from an Almighty, in an attempt to remove as much ambiguity as humanly possible, when carrying out these duties. So sure, one can posit that prima facie duties are divinely inspired, or even commanded, but only because we have created this absolute framework - through our religions. If we define God as all that is good, then we would naturally conclude that what we understand to be prima facie duties are of divine nature.
Problem being, as I suggested last time, that this line of thinking is risky. As a banal example, taking this to extremes, we have our religiously defined moral codes. We may think that one prima facie duty is to enforce such moral code, because it is divine in origin, and non-adherence would lead to the downfall of mankind. This would allow us to prioritize what duties we believe we should carry out, and to excuse potential atrocities which need to be committed while carrying out these duties, because our goal is strictly "the greater good." As God would command. As exists in parts of the Old Testament, even.
I believe that deciding what is right in particular situations depends on our knowledge and intuition, values and principles; Weighing risks / benefits balance, and also taking into account, the consequence of our decision in the affected person
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy