On Ross’ “What Makes Right Acts Right”
In WD. Ross’s “What Makes Right Acts Right”, Ross discusses the idea of duties, and how we as humans know if our actions are right. He first explains that we do not perform duties because we can understand fully understand the consequences of these duties. Rather, we perform duties because of a promise we have made to ourselves or another. The only way we know that the act we do is right is because it is self evident to us. We cannot fully understand why the right act we do is right but we know that it is right. This innate sense of morality is a concept that contradicts the theory of relativism. A relativist argues that there is no innate moral sense but rather it is developed by the society around you. Both relativism and Ross’ theory cannot coexist because if our moral sense was created by our society, it would not be self evident. But which theory makes more sense? In the case of relativism, a moral sense based in society can be used to excuse the wrong doings of different societies because they “didn’t know any better”. But if every moral being is really born knowing their duties because they are self evident, then why do many societies differ in their beliefs? Would Ross want us to argue that there is something wrong with a society’s moral compass if they do not believe in the same morals as we? I would suggest that we combine the concept of relativism and self evident duties to more closely reflect morality in the world today. Our negative duties, such as not to harm others, are self evident. Positive duties though, are not self evident but rather developed from our negative duties, so they are more open to interpretation. This would account for the differences in morality in different societies.