Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:07:14.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ross and the particularism/generalism divide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Kristian Olsen
Kristian Olsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 361 Bartlett Hall, 130 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA01003, USA
*
*Email: kolsen@philos.umass.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

W. D. Ross is commonly considered to be a generalist about prima facie duty but a particularist about absolute duty. That is, many philosophers hold that Ross accepts that there are true moral principles involving prima facie duty but denies that there are any true moral principles involving absolute duty. I agree with the former claim: Ross surely accepts prima facie moral principles. However, in this paper, I challenge the latter claim. Ross, I argue, is no more a particularist about absolute duty than a utilitarian or a Kantian is. While this conclusion is interesting in its own right, it is also important, I argue, because it prevents us from overlooking Ross’s criterion of moral obligation and because it may have implications on the broader debate between particularists and generalists.

Keywords

W.D. Rossmoral principlesparticularismgeneralismJonathan Dancy
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 56 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cullity, Garrett. 2002. “Particularism and Presumptive Reasons.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76: 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. 1993. Moral Reasons. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. 2004a. “Enticing Reasons.” In Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz, edited by Wallace, R. J., Petit, Philip, Scheffler, Samuel, and Smith, Michael, 91–118. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. 2004b. Ethics without Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, Richard. 2009. “The Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself.” In The Blackwell Guide to Kant’s Ethics, edited by Hill, Thomas E. Jr., 83–101. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 1978. Introductory Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 2006. “Actual Utility, the Objection from Impracticality, and the Move to Expected Utility.” Philosophical Studies 129: 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Robert L. 1994. “Act Utilitarianism and Decision Procedures.” Utilitas 6: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, Joshua. 2003. “Requiring and Justifying: Two Dimensions of Normative Strength.” Erkenntnis 59: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, Joshua. 2004. Brute Rationality: Normativity and Human Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Thomas. E. Jr. 1980. “Humanity as an End in Itself.” Ethics 91: 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank, Pettit, Philip, and Smith, Michael. 2000. “Ethical Particularism and Patterns.” In Moral Particularism, edited by Hooker, Brad and Little, Margaret Olivia, 79–99. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Shelly. 1989. The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lance, Mark Norris, and Little, Margaret Olivia. 2006a. “Defending Moral Particularism.” In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, edited by Dreier, James, 305–321. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lance, Mark Norris, and Little, Margaret Olivia. 2006b. “Particularism and Antitheory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, edited by Copp, David, 567–594. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leibowitz, Uri D. 2009. “A Defense of a Particularist Research Program.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12: 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenman, James. 2000. “Consequentialism and Cluelessness.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 29: 342–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Margaret Olivia. 2000. “Moral Generalities Revisited.” In Moral Particularism, edited by Hooker, Brad and Little, Margaret Olivia, 276–304. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Markosian, Ned. 2009. “Rossian Minimalism.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 4 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeever, Sean, and Ridge, Michael. 2005. “The Many Moral Particularisms.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35: 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeever, Sean, and Ridge, Michael. 2006. Principled Ethics: Generalism as a Regulative Ideal. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeever, Sean, and Ridge, Michael. 2008. “Preempting Principles: Recent Debates in Moral Particularism.” Philosophy Compass 3: 1177–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, David. 1988. Moral Vision. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miller, Dale E. 2003. “Actual-Consequence Act Utilitarianism and the Best Possible Humans.” Ratio 16: 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1912. Ethics. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas W. 1998. “The Categorical Imperative.” In Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”: Critical Essays, edited by Guyer, Paul, 189–213. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W. 2008. “Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism.” Philosophical Studies 138: 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, Douglas W. 2011. Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1939. The Foundations of Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 1997. “Moral Rules.” Ethics 107: 584–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2012. The Fundamentals of Ethics. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. 1907. The Methods of Ethics. 7th ed.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2000. Kant, Duty and Moral Worth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2002. Introduction to The Right and the Good, by Ross, W. D., edited by Stratton-Lake, Philip, ix–lviii. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stratton-Lake, Philip. 2011. “Eliminativism about Derivative Prima Facie Duties.” In Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing, edited by Hurka, Thomas, 146–165. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmons, Mark. 2002. Moral Theory: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Timmons, Mark. 2006. “The Categorical Imperative and Universalizability.” In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, edited by Horn, Christoph and Shönecker, Dieter, 158–199. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Väyrynen, Pekka. 2006. “Moral Generalism: Enjoy in Moderation.” Ethics 116: 707–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Väyrynen, Pekka. 2009. “A Theory of Hedged Moral Principles.” In vol. 4 of Oxford Studies in Metaethics, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ, 91–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen. 1998. “Humanity as an End in Itself.” In Kant’s “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”: Critical Essays, edited by Guyer, Paul, 165–187. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar