Other Contemporary Views
Deontological Theories:
Two Artic explorers have only enough food to keep one
of them alive until he can reach the base. The first
explorer offers to die if the second will promise to
educate his (the first one’s) children. Should the
utilitarian keep her promise? Given the utilitarian goal,
should promises matter if they do not maximize overall
happiness?
Kant says that one has a sacred duty to another. We
should never break our word no matter what.
Is there a middle ground?
Contract
A contract is a promise, and there would seem to be a duty not to
violate a contract if it has been voluntarily entered into by both
parties.
•It is not solely for utilitarian reasons that you have a contract.
•It is not solely for egoistic reasons that you have a duty to honor a
contract.
•One of the main tasks of the law is to enforce contracts
voluntarily entered.
•The laws allow for exceptions. For instance, if there was an
honest misunderstanding. Such as if two boats had the same name.
Or, if it is impossible to complete the contract. Ought implies can.
Or, if a contractor could not meet every single term, but could still
keep the contract.
Friendship
Should you do the same for a stranger as you would do for a
friend? A friend has listened about the details of your breakup at
two in the morning, a friend has picked you up in the middle of the
night when your car broke down, a friend has helped you study for
your exams and has lent you money for books. Do you owe this
friend more than you owe a stranger? How does owing somebody
something fit into utilitarian theory?
Ross’s Theory
Sir David Ross (1877-1971)
• Ross points out that we all have various duties. Utilitarians
reduce all duties to one, the duty to maximize the good.
•Ross claims that we have prima facie duties. Ross has a list of
prima facie duties:
•Duties of fidelity. The fact that a promise was made is a more
powerful reason for keeping it than the fact that by keeping it
you will maximize the overall good.
•Ross believes the utilitarian makes the mistake of assuming
that all duties are future-looking - duties to produce certain
consequences in the future. However, some duties are pastlooking.
Ross’s Theory
Duties of Reparation:
If I back my car into my neighbor’s fence, then I owe her a new
fence. I can’t say, “Instead of fixing your fence I think I’ll give the
money to the Salvation Army, because more good will be brought
about that way.”
Ross’s Theory
Duties of Gratitude:
Duty is personal: If we have to choose between saving someone
that could do more overall good and saving our father, then
wouldn’t we be justified in saving our father? Your father helped
raise you, he put a roof over your head, lent you money, and so
forth. Doesn’t he deserve your gratitude?
Duties of Beneficence:
We have a duty to promote the general good. This is our
utilitarian duty, but it is only one among many.
Duties of Non-Maleficence:
We have a duty not to harm others. Ross considers this stronger
than that of beneficence.
Ross’s Theory
Duties of Justice:
Ross believes that justice does not have to do with the amount of
good produced but with its distribution. If I have to decide if to
give my $100 to a brother that is going to use it to purchase
textbooks or $100 to a brother that wants to go on a shopping
spree, then I should help the brother using the money to buy
textbooks. It does not matter what the consequences are, only who
deserves it more.
Duties of self-improvement:
We have an obligation to improve our own virtue, intelligence and
happiness.
Ross’s Theory
Principles to resolve conflicting duties:
1. Always do that act in accord with the stronger prima facie
duty.
2. Always do that act that has the greatest degree of prima facie
rightness over prima facie wrongness.
Problems with Ross’s Theory
Where do we draw the line?
We agree that we have duties of gratitude and duties of justice.
What if our friend did pick us up at night when our car broke
down, and lent us money when we were a little short. What if
she did something wrong and wanted us to keep quiet? How
do we decide if the duty of gratitude or the duty of justice is
the stronger prima facie duty?
Is Ross’s list accurate?
What about duties to country and duties to future generations?
Person-Relativity? To what extent am I responsible for my
actions? See page 175.
Rule Utilitarianism
So far, we have been discussing act utilitarianism. However, there
is a more contemporary view, called rule utilitarianism.
According to rule utilitarianism, we should not do the act that will
lead to maximum good, we should follow the rule whose
general adoption would cause the most good.
Act utilitarianism has a problem with those actions that have no
utility unless all or most people do them. If a sign says, “Don’t
walk on the grass,” and everyone has walked on and killed the
grass, then the consequences are that you should walk on the
grass. It is dead anyway, and walking through the area will
help you get to class five minutes sooner.
Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism
Cab rules be formulated for unique situations.

Jean-Paul Sartre said that trying to give “the rule under which
the act falls” does not help us to decide what to do in our
unique situation. He gives the example of a young Frenchman
that does not know whether he should joint the Resistance or
stay home and help his invalid mother. How should he
choose? Where do we go from there?

No two people are ever in the exact same situation, so rules are
useless.

Conflicts of rules:

What if two rules conflict?
Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism
Complexity of Rules:
•
There are so many exceptions to rules that we can’t really
know which one has an exception to it.
•
A rule is useless if it can’t be taught and if it is too
complicated to learn.
Just one rule?
•
At the opposite end of extreme complexity is extreme
simplicity. Why not simplify the whole affair by saying,
“Never tell a lie except when telling a lie will do the most
good.
•
A rule with this much vagueness would be of virtually no
use to anyone.
Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism
Isn’t act utilitarianism sufficient?
•
Why do we need a rule? Can’t we figure the overall probable
consequences of an act without a rule? Act utilitarians have
called this “rule worship.”
•
Act with minimal consequences. See pages 184-185