Final answer:
The statement that Ross believed prima facie duties are tentatively binding and require us to use judgment when they conflict is true. Ross argued that in situations with conflicting duties, we determine our most pressing, actual duty through a judgement that balances prima facie rightness and wrongness.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Ross held that prima facie duties are tentatively binding and when they conflict, we must rely on intuition to choose the stronger duty, is True. Sir William David Ross believed that our moral obligations are prima facie duties, which he defined as self-evident duties recognized through experience and maturity. These duties are not absolute but tentatively binding, meaning they hold until proven otherwise by a stronger, competing duty in a particular situation.
Ross identified several prima facie duties such as duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, promoting the maximum aggregate of good, and non-maleficence. He asserted that, in situations where multiple conflicting prima facie duties are relevant, we must use judgment to determine which duty is most pressing and thus, our actual duty. This process involves considering the facts and potential consequences of the action to decide on the greatest balance of prima facie rightness over prima facie wrongness.
Competing Duties
In real-world scenarios involving moral dilemmas, such as choosing whether to break a promise to help someone in need, Ross argued that our obligation to act on the more pressing duty overrides the less critical ones, thereby fulfilling our actual duty. He also believed that when such a decision is made, there should be a recognition of the prima facie wrongness of not fulfilling the lesser duty, if any exists.