 everyone. Today, we are going to talk about ethical rules with reference to W. D. Ross. We have been talking about rule deontology, deontology in general and rule deontology in particular. We have talked about Immanuel Kant, who provided us with a deontological system which was without content. Now, let us just before we start talking on Ross, let us quickly recapitulate what Kant said as a deontologist, what deontology was and what Kant as a deontologist said and as to what Ross as a deontologist is different. Now, deontology as we remember was that version of moral theory, which did not subscribe to non-moral goods as being the final or ultimate judgment criteria for making a moral judgment. So, there was something atomic or fundamental about moral values. Most of them based it on moral rules. Kant started the earliest example, before we talk about Kant, we talked about Kant. The earliest example of deontological rules was that of the rules of religion. Now, religion has certain dos and don'ts which were atomic in nature and which did not depend on any consequences for its justification. Now comes Kant. Kant also stuck to deontology, but in a different sense. In fact, Kant's deontology, Immanuel Kant's deontology was not about rules as much as about it was meta rules or it was what he would recollect called the categorical imperative, that there is no content in his deontological ethics, but there is a formula or rule or a meta rule to be more precise, which determines what rule is a moral rule and what rule is not a moral rule. That was universalizability. The universalizability criteria was the meta rule to decide the morally right from the wrong. Now, we come to another example of rule deontology that is W. D. Ross. Now, taking a look at the slide, you will find, well first of all W. D. Ross was a philosopher who tried to work out, who tried to work out a deontological ethics with content, that is he gave a certain duties. Ross postulates his moral theory on moral rules, a version of which is termed as the prima facie in Latin, which means in first clans, prima facie duties. Prima facie duties are duties that become apparent or evident on the first encounter with a moral dilemma. Ross view is that our actual moral duty in any situation has to be arrived at by weighing our prima facie duties and deciding which is most important. Now, let us understand what Ross is trying to say. Well, Ross postulates this thing called prima facie duties. Prima facie is a phrase that you would have perhaps come across in a legal terminology as prima facie evidence. So, he uses the same phrase in the same ethos that there are certain prima facie duties, just as prima facie evidence in legal terminology would mean that evidence as it is found at the scene of the incident. Now, prima facie duties are also duties which Ross prescribes which are at the moment or at the moment of interface or at the preliminaries interaction with the circumstance. Now, just as prima facie evidence does not make an indictment, it is absorbed, assimilated and a judgment or a case is filed, it is examined in detail and the final judgment is arrived at. Similarly, Ross claim is that well, prima facie duties are not some things that are immediately your duties, but which are duties that crop up in any circumstance. So, and then looking at the slide again, Ross view is that our actual moral duty in any situation has to be arrived at by weighing our prima facie duties and deciding which is most important. So, Ross here makes a distinction between actual duties and prima facie duties. Let us go to the next slide to see what further she talks about. Now, what about the decision? Now, as we saw in the earlier slide, Ross talks about the decision is to be taken by the agent in due cognizance of the particular situation to arrive from the prima facie duties to the actual duties. So, there can be a hierarchy amongst duties when other components are equal. There can be no absolute hierarchy amongst the duties. Now, this is a crucial thing that we need to pay attention to. Now, when confronted, Ross gives a set of duties which is called the prima facie duties, but these prima facie duties are a few duties or seven duties which do not apply in every circumstances in a fixed hierarchy. The agent or who is in the center of the action has to decide taking in cognizance the situation, the circumstances, what is the hierarchy of the implication of the duties. So, the prima facie duties gives the background and the agent evaluates the circumstances and arrives at the actual sense of duties. Ross also mentions that well, there is a hierarchy amongst the duties as you would see the second bullet that there is a hierarchy amongst duties when other components are equal, but he also in the same breath mentioned that there can be no absolute hierarchy amongst the duties. So, what Ross is in effect doing is he is actually allowing there to be a fixed set of duties, but yet giving freedom to the agent to decide on the hierarchy amongst duties. We will talk about it in a few slides from now. Let us now look at the duties, what the prima facie duties which Ross puts forth. Well, he says duties from the first duty he mentions is duties from the previous acts of the agent. He talks about duties of fidelity that keeping one's commitment implicit or explicit be duties of preparation, making good or wrongful act. So, Ross claim is that duties of fidelity is well, whatever commitment one makes the first duty is to fulfill one's commitment be it made implicitly or explicitly. Likewise, he puts a second addendum to the duty by saying duty by calling it the duties of preparation that is making good or wrongful act. Now, both of these are under rise from the duties from the previous acts of the agent. The second duty that Ross talks about are duties of gratitude. These are duties to repay obligations. The third he talks about is duties of justice that is it is about preventing in equitable distribution. The fourth duty that he talks about is duties of beneficence or making better the lives of other beings. The fifth duty he talks about is duties of self-improvement, growth in the agent's own virtues or of intelligence. Sixth, duties of non-maleficence that is not injuring others. So, as we might see that these are perhaps some of the most fundamental human drives that we have. Duties of beneficence is about making better the lives of other beings. So, it is our duty to be as to make other's lives better as much as we can. Duties of self-improvement, duties of non-maleficence, fairly self-explanatory. Now, what is the upshot of Ross's theory? Now, he puts forth a theory of prima facie duties and then the actual duties are to be determined by himself. Well, Ross's theories remain absolutistic yet attempt to cater the particularities of varied moral dilemmas. The rules are absolute, but the hierarchy depends on the particular situation. The hierarchy amongst rules is decided by what? Well, that is the question. Now, we have just talked about the various rules that Ross has put forth, but Ross does allow for, does overcome the problems with the ontological theories. The problems with the ontological theories is they are, they tend to be too rigid. They do not have a flexibility. They do not take into account the circumstances, the situations of the agent and in general. So, here we see that well, Ross is trying to find out, perhaps find out a midway between Ross, between the rigid claims of deontology and the real life human situation that we generally come across. How does he find that? Well, he finds that way by making the prima facie duties fixed. So, that is why they are absolute, but when he talks about the particularities of the varied moral dilemmas, he says that well, the hierarchy determined from these, as you would see in the second bullet, rules are absolute, but the hierarchy depends on the particular situation. So, in this second bullet, Ross introduces the discretion of the agent. Now, how is the discretion of the agent to be decided? Well, one most obvious answer could be that we have a moral sense. Could we have a moral sense? Is it intuition? Moral qualities, supervene on sensible qualities, we are essentially making moral judgments, because no matter that the prima facie duties are provided, but the way to arrive at the actual duties or making a hierarchy amongst the duties, that where a duty of reparation shall supersede the duty of beneficence or the other way round. So, there can be never a uniformity in judgments across different circumstances, but can there be a uniformity in judgments in the same circumstances across agents? Now, let us see what, how Ross answers that. A uniformity in judgments requires a uniformity in nature, human nature. Our moral ideas and moral judgments are based on certain common facts about human nature. Within our enormous variety lies some essential similarities and that is the source of our morality. Now, this is what is the crux of Ross's claim, which we have briefly covered to find out that well. Ross is a deontologist, is a rule deontologist. He puts forth his rules, which he calls prima facie duties. Nevertheless, he respects the uniqueness of each human predicament or situation and the decision making power lies with the agent himself or herself. Ross's deontological rules are absolutist in this sense that they have a finite set of prima facie duties. They are flexible in the sense because they have the agent to decide on the hierarchy between the prima facie duties. This is almost like a middle path between the rigid absolutist deontological rules and yet these absolute rules, which are indifferent to particular human situations. Yet, it does not embrace the other corner, which is moral particularism that every situation is unique and therefore, there can be no theorizing on this. You would note that the prima facie duties that Ross has enumerated can generally be understood as a basic human, the drive of goodness in human beings that is fundamental to human nature. Because now, for these prima facie duties, Ross requires the grounding. Where is the grounding for these prima facie duties? Where is the locus or what is the ontology for these duties? Ross's claim is that these duties are grounded in the way we are as human beings. He grounds these fundamental duties or impulses as a part of human nature. It is not acquired, it is not learnt, it is not religious, but it is uniform across nature. Now, notice the enormous depth in grounding these fundamental human impulses into prima facie duties is actually making these prima facie duties absolute. He is making laying a ground for a set of duties, which are valid across civilizations and cultures. Yet, it respects the differences among civilizations, cultures and agents by saying that well, the actual hierarchy in putting forth the duties are to be determined only by the agent themselves. So, within our enormous, as I read from the last bullet, within our enormous variety lies some essential similarities and that is the source of our morality. Now, this is what Ross would like us to believe that there are enormous differences in human nature, but there are essential similarities and that is the source of our morality. So, we have a deontological system of rules wherein the source or the grounding of the rules is in the commonality of human nature and nothing else. The divine command theory again had ruled deontology, but it grounded its rules on the word of God or on the laws made by on divine laws. But, Ross makes a much more perhaps believable account of rule deontology by grounding the rules on the essential similarities of human nature.