Utilitas 22 (1):26-32 (2010)
|Abstract||In The Right and the Good, W. D. Ross commits himself to the view that, in addition to being distinct and defeasible, some prima facie duties are more binding than others. David McNaughton has argued that there appears to be no way of making sense of this claim that is both coherent and consistent with Ross's overall picture. I offer an alternative way of understanding Ross's remarks about the comparative stringency of prima facie duties, which, in addition to being compatible with his view as presented in the text, provides us with a coherent, and indeed plausible, account of what it means for some duties to be more binding than others.|
|Keywords||Ross prima facie duties|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
B. C. Postow (2006). A Partial Application Procedure for Ross's Ethical Theory. Journal of Philosophical Research 31:239-248.
H. H. Jack (1971). Utilitarianism and Ross's Theory of Prima Facie Duties. Dialogue 10 (03):437-456.
Henry Jack (1971). Note on Doubts About Prima Facie Duties. Philosophy 46 (176):160-.
Frank Snare (1974). The Definition of Prima Facie Duties. Philosophical Quarterly 24 (96):235-244.
Peter Jones (1970). Doubts About Prima Facie Duties. Philosophy 45 (171):39-.
Henry Jack (1966). More on Prima Facie Duties. Journal of Philosophy 63 (18):521-524.
Bernard H. Baumrin (1965). Prima Facie Duties. Journal of Philosophy 62 (24):736-739.
John Atwell (1978). Ross and Prima Facie Duties. Ethics 88 (3):240-249.
Carlos E. Alchourrón (1996). Detachment and Defeasibility in Deontic Logic. Studia Logica 57 (1):5 - 18.
Michael Morreau (1996). Prima Facie and Seeming Duties. Studia Logica 57 (1):47 - 71.
Added to index2010-02-09
Total downloads52 ( #19,948 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,703 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?