Ross Vs Kant

As we have become more familiar with the Ross’ theories we can now determine the similarities and differences between him and Kant. Ross did in fact incorporate aspects of Kantian deontology with utilitarian philosophy. He agrees that we are supplied with certain moral rules and duties to which we must abide. He further agrees that it is never the consequence of some action that makes an action right or good. Just like Kant, he might say that we have an obligation not to kill, steal or lie. He described our obligations as Prima Facie duties. This means that they are, 'at first appearancee', things that we must do.. But Ross is also critical of Kant’s deontological views that make certain types of act always right or wrong. our moral rules & duties are never perfect duties and thus can be broken at times our moral rules & duties stem from intuition and not from reason alone our intuitive sense stems from & depends upon our early …show more content…
The first duty is a based on previous actions, referred to as a promise. For example, when you make a promise you incur a duty. You also have the duty to repair harm from a previous action you have done. The second duty, gratitude, rests on previous acts of others toward you. The third duty, justice, rests on preventing the possibility of giving happiness not warranted to another person. In other words, when you make a choice be accountable for your actions. Happiness is something you have to earn. The fourth duty is acknowledgement that other beings in the world could better their condition based on our actions which is referred to as beneficence. The fifth duty is self-improvement. It arrives from our ability to improve our own virtue, intelligence or pleasure. Finally, the sixth duty requires one to avoid harm to others such as the Hippocratic Oath which says: “First do no