Ethics              Discussion Project                 Pluralism and Particularism

Return one more time to your hypothetical case from the handout, “Cases For Discussion.”.  Try to agree on answers to the following questions:

1.  What prima facie moral duties might be relevant to your case? (See the list on page 233 in The Fundamentals of Ethics.  Since this is not meant tobe a complete list, consider whether there are other duties that seem relevant.)

2.   Try to explain how these duties would apply to the specific situation described in your case.  That is, for each duty, say what sort of response would be called for.  (For example, if the prima facie rule that promises should be kept is relevant to your case, the explain what sort of action would satisfy that rule in this case.)

3.  Do these duties all tend to call for the same decision?  Or are they in conflict with one another?  If they are in conflict, how would you be inclined to resolve the conflict?  Does one decision seem to be the most ethical one, overall?

4.  Particularists insist that there are no genuine prima facie rules (or duties).  According to their view, any characteristic that has been alleged to always count in favor of an action, in fact sometimes counts against it or counts not at all.  (For example, the fact that doing something would amount to keeping a promise is not always a fact that counts in favor of doing that thing.  It sometimes counts against it, or doesn't count at all.)  Does it seem plausible to you that the prima facie duties you have identified as relevant to your case, would also have the same sort of ethical effect in all relevantly similar cases?  Or can you imagine factors that would so alter the moral balance of your case that, if they were present, but everything was still as it is described on the handout, a different decision would be called for?  (Try to give at least one compelling example of such a factor.)