Garrett's Modifications
Introduction
Garrett’s modifications provide no improvements to Ross’s original theory. Firstly, I will provide background on Ross’s original theory and Garrets modifications. Secondly, I will argue that Garrett’s modifications are extensive and unnecessary. Thirdly, I will argue that Garret’s modifications didn’t resolve the issues with the original theory.
Background
Ross argues that morality is influenced by several factors and that theories which argue otherwise are oversimplifying morality. He claims that in order to act moral, individuals must balance a set of duties and obligations. Ross refers to those duties as prima facie duties, which he believes provide individuals with the necessary information needed to make moral judgments. The …show more content…
Garret’s modifications simply, explain the original prima facie duties more explicitly and extensively. For example, respect for freedom states that individuals should not enslave, kidnap or force others into participating in activities and insure that the basic needs of life are provided to those that can’t secure them. However, Ross had already made it clear that such actions are not moral and that everyone’s basic needs should be meet. Under non-maleficence, Ross explicitly states that individuals have a duty to refrain from harming others physically or psychologically, which would therefore prohibit enslavement and kidnapping. Also, under beneficence individuals have the duty to improve the conditions of others which would include health, security and education. Ross had already established these principles, all Garret did was combine both non-maleficence and beneficence into one prima facie …show more content…
Yet, under beneficence, Ross already established the importance of caring for others which includes relatives. Garrett’s emphasis on care, places the wellbeing of relatives over the general public, which conflicts with the prima facie duty beneficence. For example, when an individual observers a dispute between a stranger and his relative, he finds himself morally inclined to support his relative regardless. Placing a greater value on the wellbeing of relatives, can confuse and lead individuals to support their relatives blindly. The addition of care as a prima facie duty has no purpose other than to cause confusion for individuals making moral
Garrett’s modifications provide no improvements to Ross’s original theory. Firstly, I will provide background on Ross’s original theory and Garrets modifications. Secondly, I will argue that Garrett’s modifications are extensive and unnecessary. Thirdly, I will argue that Garret’s modifications didn’t resolve the issues with the original theory.
Background
Ross argues that morality is influenced by several factors and that theories which argue otherwise are oversimplifying morality. He claims that in order to act moral, individuals must balance a set of duties and obligations. Ross refers to those duties as prima facie duties, which he believes provide individuals with the necessary information needed to make moral judgments. The …show more content…
Garret’s modifications simply, explain the original prima facie duties more explicitly and extensively. For example, respect for freedom states that individuals should not enslave, kidnap or force others into participating in activities and insure that the basic needs of life are provided to those that can’t secure them. However, Ross had already made it clear that such actions are not moral and that everyone’s basic needs should be meet. Under non-maleficence, Ross explicitly states that individuals have a duty to refrain from harming others physically or psychologically, which would therefore prohibit enslavement and kidnapping. Also, under beneficence individuals have the duty to improve the conditions of others which would include health, security and education. Ross had already established these principles, all Garret did was combine both non-maleficence and beneficence into one prima facie …show more content…
Yet, under beneficence, Ross already established the importance of caring for others which includes relatives. Garrett’s emphasis on care, places the wellbeing of relatives over the general public, which conflicts with the prima facie duty beneficence. For example, when an individual observers a dispute between a stranger and his relative, he finds himself morally inclined to support his relative regardless. Placing a greater value on the wellbeing of relatives, can confuse and lead individuals to support their relatives blindly. The addition of care as a prima facie duty has no purpose other than to cause confusion for individuals making moral