David Ross, Ideal Utilitarianism, and the Intrinsic Value of Acts
The denial of the intrinsic value of acts apart from both motives and consequences lies at the heart of Ross’s deontology and his opposition to ideal utilitarianism. Moreover, the claim that acts can have intrinsic value is a staple element of early and contemporary attempts to “consequentialise” all of morality. I first show why Ross’s denial is relevant both for his philosophy and for current debates. Then I consider and reject as inconclusive some of Ross’s explicit and implicit motivations for his claim, stemming from his philosophy of action, his axiology, and his concept of intrinsic value, or a combination of these. I also criticize Ross’s later view that all right acts somehow produce some good, but that the value of some of these goods is explained by the prior rightness of the act. In the course of the discussion, the idea that acts can have intrinsic value apart from motives and consequences gains credibility both from the weaknesses in Ross’s arguments and from some putative examples. So, finally, I distinguish two attitudes in the history of ideal utilitarianism towards the necessity or not to give a detailed account of the intrinsic value of acts, and suggest that a Why Bother attitude is more promising than a Constructive one.
S. Brennan. Ross, Promises, and the Intrinsic Value of Acts. Lyceum, 1:43–56, 1989.
J. Broome. Weighing Goods. Blackwell, Oxford, 1991.
J. Dancy. Wiggins and Ross. Utilitas, 10:281–5, 1998.
S. Darwall. Under Moore’s Spell. Utilitas, 10:286–91, 1998.
J. Dreier. Structures of Normative Theories. The Monist, 76:22–40, 1993.
A. C. Ewing. The Morality of Punishment. Kegan Paul, London, 1929.
A. C. Ewing. The Definition of Good. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1947.
A. C. Ewing. Utilitarianism. Ethics, 58(2):100–111, 1948.
T. Hurka. Virtue, Vice and Value. Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
O. A. Johnson. Rightness, Moral Obligation, and Goodness. Journal of Philosophy, 50:597–608, 1953.
O. A. Johnson. Rightness and Goodness. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1959. H. W. B. Joseph. Some Problems in Ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1931.
J. Louise. Relativity of Value and the Consequentialist Umbrella. Philosophical Quarterly, 54:518–536, 2004.
G. E. Moore. Principia Ethica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
P. Pettit. The Consequentialist Perspective. In M. Baron, P. Pettit, and M. Slote, editors, Three Methods of Ethics, pages 92–174. Blackwell, Oxford, 1997.
D. Portmore. Consequentializing Moral Theories. Pacific PhilosophicalQuarterly, 88(39-73), 2007.
H. A. Prichard. Moral Writings. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2002.
W. Rabinowicz and T. Rønnow-Rasmussen. The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro-Attitudes and Value. Ethics, 114:391–423, 2004.
H. Rashdall. The Theory of Good and Evil. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1924.
W. D. Ross. The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930.
W. D. Ross. Foundations of Ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1939.
A. Sen. Rights and Agency. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11(1): 3–39, 1982.
R. Shaver. The Birth of Deontology. In T. Hurka, editor, Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.
A. Skelton. William David Ross. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010.
A. Skelton. Ideal Utilitarianism: Rashdall and Moore. In T. Hurka, editor, Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.
M. Smith. Natural and Relative Value After Moore. Ethics, 113(3): 576–598, 2003.
D. Sosa. Consequences of Consequentialism. Mind, 102:101–122, 1993.
P. Vallentyne. Teleology, Consequentialism and the Past. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 22:89–101, 1988.
D. Wiggins. “The Right and the Good” and W. D. Ross’s Criticism of Consequentialism. Utilitas, 10:261–80, 1998.
The Public Knowledge Project recommends the use of the Creative Commons license. The Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy requires authors to agree to a Creative Commons Attribution /Non-commercial license. Authors who publish with the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC license.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.