W. D. Ross W. D. Ross has been said to hold a position that is "representative of pluralistic deontology".

[ Ross argued that utilitarianism was an inadequate moral theory because it failed to appropriately account for primary moral concerns: [Utilitarianism] seems to simplify unduly our relations to our fellows. It says, in effect, that the only morally significant relation in which my neighbours stand to me is that of being possible beneficiaries of my action. They do stand in this relation to me, and this relation is morally significant. But they may also stand to me in the relation of promisee to promisor, of creditor to debtor, of wife to husband, of fellow countryman to fellow countryman, and the like; and each of these relations is the foundation of a...duty.... Ross's pluralism is also apparent in this quote. He argues that there are seven right making features of moral action: Duty of beneficence: A duty to help other people (increase pleasure, improve character)
   

 

Duty of non-maleficence: A duty to avoid harming other people. Duty of justice: A duty to ensure people get what they deserve. Duty of self-improvement: A duty to improve ourselves. Duty of reparation: A duty to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them. Duty of gratitude: A duty to benefit people who have benefited us. Duty of promise-keeping: A duty to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth.

He called these prima facie duties, because when a person tries to decide how to act, each of these duties need to be taken into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon. When more than one of these "duties" applies to a person in some situation, only one should be acted upon. Assume, for example, that I promise to watch a movie with a friend. I now have a prima facie duty to go with her to watch the movie. However,

on my way to pick my friend up, I see a car accident. The person who was clearly in the wrong insists that it is the innocent person's fault. I now have a prima facie duty of justice to wait for the police to arrive at the accident and report what I saw. What is my duty? Ross would probably say that the duty of justice trumped the duty of promise-keeping in this instance. I can, after all, explain the situation to my friend, and make it up to her somehow. In another situation, however, the duty of promise-keeping may be more significant than the duty of justice.

I know what utilitarianism is: An individual who would do something for everybody and doesn't think of themselves. Example: If I walk in a room of 20 with a cake and divide the cake into equal portions including myself to benefit the entire classroom. That is a utilitarian trait, you do was much possible -including yourself- with the abilities you have and no more for any individual and have not ulterior motivates by providing the services. I know what utilitarianism is: An individual who would do something for everybody and doesn't think of themselves. Example: If I walk in a room of 20 with a cake and divide the cake into equal portions including myself to benefit the entire classroom. That is a utilitarian trait, you do was much possible -including yourself- with the abilities you have and no more for any individual and have not ulterior motivates by providing the services. Deontological ethics are the ethics of duty and obligations. Deontologists maintain that actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, regardless or the consequences, and that consequences indeed should not even enter in to the decision of how to behave. In fact, an individual who practices deontological ethics could completely believe in the virtues of the outcome of a particular behavior, but still believe that said behavior should not performed because the behavior itself is morally wrong (Kordig, 1973). It is the behavior that has intrinsic value (Roth, 1995); the intent behind the action is what matters, not the outcome of said action. Humans are

rewarded or punished according to actions within our control, and it only our intent that we indeed have control over, not necessarily the consequences During the past quarter century, abortion has joined race and war as one of the most debatable subjects of controversy in the United States. It discusses human interaction where ethics, emotions and law come together. Abortion poses a moral, social and medical dilemma that faces many individuals to create an emotional and violent atmosphere. Abortion stops the beating of an innocent childs heart. The termination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent life can either be spontaneous or induced. When abortion occurs spontaneously, it is called a miscarriage. However, when the loss of a fetus is caused intentionally, it is regarded as a moral issue. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and is illegal in many countries. People must no longer ignore the scientific evidence that life begins at the moment of conception. We can no longer ignore the medical and emotional problems an abortion causes women. People must stop denying the facts about the pher states In fact many women will come to me considering an abortion, and I have been personally told that I am to turn the monitor away from her view so that seeing her baby jump around on the screen does not influence her choice . Does Shari believe she is complying with beneficence and non-maleficence? Yes. Shari feels she is doing no harm and is doing something positive that will affect a mothers welfare. If the clinic can clearly see that the baby is alive, the mother should also see. Abortion is described as a decision between a women and her doctor. Yet many patients do not see the doctor until its time to abort the baby. Are they really providing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people? Abortion is justified everyday, however whether it is practice that can be morally justified as universal law is another issue. The only way I can see that abortion might receive the most moral acceptance, is that if it is presented on the grounds that we must all step back and respect that other

moral agents have a right to make autonomous decisions, regardless of what we think about the way they choose to assert their autonomy. Morality Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. Morality has two principal meanings:


In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.  In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=198861