Benefits Of Rossian Pluralism

The Benefits of Rossian Pluralism over Monistic Moral Theories Can morality be effectively described by a single moral duty? If we completely deconstruct morality itself are we left with a single intrinsic moral rule that is the basis of morality as a whole? Many ethical theories try to reduce morality to a single principle. Whether it be the respect of other 's autonomy, keeping promises, or producing the best possible outcome of any situation. Theories like these include Contractualism, Kantianism and Consequentialism among others. Rossian Pluralism and Virtue Ethics both take ideas from monistic moral theories such as these, while at the same time proposing an idea of morality that is radically different. They suggest we have multiple intrinsic

If the rules are too vague, then it is at risk of the exact same issues as Virtue Ethics. Initially this does not seem like it poses any real problem since the rules can be made more specific. However, based on the train example, does respecting autonomy always come second to ensuring the livelihood of others? What if hundreds of people had to live with very little autonomy in order to save the life of one person, or a thousand people, or a million people? Very quickly it seems debatable which one is more important, the life of one person or the autonomy of multiple others. Rossian Pluralism has no real answer to this, as any line drawn to produce an answer: ten people, twenty people, 100 people, seems completely arbitrary. There seems to be a dilemma in the fact that a set of weighting rules are a necessity for Rossian Pluralism to function, but it is impossible for them to truly and decisively sort out moral duty conflicts without the result appearing to be either arbitrary or vague. There is no universal line where autonomy is more important than promise keeping or fidelity or any other duty. Ultimately Rossian Pluralism is still a somewhat unsatisfactory theory. However its problems are ones that plague every moral theory. So it is irrational to debunk Rossian Pluralism on these

Monistic theories have failed to be sufficiently broad to provide an adequate answer to any moral scenario they are given. Furthermore, of the main Pluralistic theories, Rossian Pluralism 's inclusion of weighting rules makes it a better candidate for a moral theory than Virtue Ethics, which is far too relativistic to be viable. Finally, although Rossian Pluralism 's weighting rules cannot give an adequate answer to all moral conflicts, one must accept that this is simply the nature of morality itself. It seems unlikely that we will ever find the answer to all conflicts between moral duties, just as it is unlikely that we will find out whether or not paintings by Michelangelo are objectively better than paintings by Picasso, or whether or not one should save ten burning Picasso paintings instead of three burning Michelangelo paintings. Because morality is subjective, we will never find answers to questions that require one to draw meaningless lines where one thing becomes more important than another. Therefore, despite this universal issue, Rossian Pluralism still seems to be the most sensible moral