W. D. Ross begins his piece by offering an alternative from hedonistic utilitarianism. The theory is basically that right actions are right if they produce more good than other possible actions to the same scenario (Ross II). He uses an example of meeting a friend for dinner. If someone makes a promise to their friend to go to dinner, they should keep that promise unless breaking it would result in more good. For instance, if going to dinner on time means that the person will drive recklessly and potentially hurt others, then it is best to be late to dinner. He then compares choosing to be benevolent rather than choosing to keep a promise.
In order to decide which is the best choice, a person would have to compare the potential good that would come out of the benevolent act and how serious the promise was, to begin with. This raises an interesting dilemma. How does one judge whether one act is better than another? For instance, what if someone promised to give their friend twenty dollars, but instead decided to donate the twenty dollars to a food bank? Was that action morally good since they donated to charity, or is it morally bad because they broke a promise to a friend? Ross’s method has more ambiguity than Kant’s philosophy which is to keep a promise no matter the situation. However, more ambiguity might be a good thing. Rarely is the world black and white, and having a little moral wiggle room might be best for a moral theory.
Much later in the essay, Ross tries to compare being moral to a mathematical equation. If X action produces 1000 units of good versus Y action producing 1001 units of good means that action Y is the action that someone needs to take. While on a surface level, this may seem like an easy solution, Ross explains that it is not how the world really works. There are many more layers in deciding what the right course of action is to do. For instance, keeping a promise does not play a factor in the mathematical equation, nor does the goodness or wickedness of the people that units of good would benefit. If one action would greatly benefit someone who is bad, then that action is still not good, even if it does produce more good for that one person.
This mathematical approach to moral philosophy makes me think of the television show The Good Place. As shown here, and in the show, reducing actions to right and wrong and then putting a number equivalent to them is virtually impossible. When I was in the 7th grade, I had a falling out with my best friend, Sam. In an attempt to apologize to me, Sam bought me a candy gram for Valentine’s Day. Once the candy grams were delivered for the day, I had received around 4 (2 from my parents, one from Sam, and one from myself). Now, the student who sat beside me every day, Luke, did not receive a single candy gram and was upset about it. Trying to be a good person, I gave him one of my candy grams. However, I did not know that Sam had given me a candy gram and that was the one that was given away. As a result, Luke was happy to be given a candy gram, and once she found out, Sam cried. Was my action good or bad? I certainly intended to bring more good into the world, but I’m not sure that I did. Ross’s theory does not really answer my question if that was a morally good or a morally bad act.
