Sir David Ross, The Right and the Good
Ross' ethical theory was developed in conscious opposition to Kant's ethics and to utilitarianism.
His theory is deontological (like Kant's), but he finds a difficulty in Kant's categorical imperative because it does not seem to allow for conflicts of universal laws.
Example: "the murderer and the lie"
He criticizes utilitarian theories because they ignore "the highly personal character of duty" and incorrectly assume that the only morally significant relationship between persons is being the beneficiary of another person's action.
Example: "promise to my mother vs. promise to a stranger"
Ross maintains we have moral duties arising out of morally significant relationships:
promisor--promisee
creditor--debtor
spouse--spouse
parent--child
friend--friend
brother--sister
sister--sister
teacher--student
significant others
These morally significant relationships give rise to prima facie duties (duties "at first glance" or "on first consideration"):
1. duties resting on my past acts
fidelity
reparation
2. duties of gratitude (for services rendered to me)
3. duties of justice (distribution of happiness according to merit)
4. duties of beneficience (improving the condition of others)
5. duties of self improvement (moral and intellectual)
6. duties of non-maleficience: NOT TO HARM
These prima facie duties are self-evident.
Examples:
Simple duty
Complex duty
Sometimes prima facie duties conflict. Then one must determine one's "duty proper," "actual duty," or "duty sans phrase," and this will not be self-evident. Upon reflection, we typically can see that one of the conflicting prima facie duties is more pressing (weightier) than the other.
Conflict of duties