Final answer:
Sir William David Ross argued that utilitarianism and deontology oversimplify morality by reducing it to single principles, failing to accommodate the complexities of moral decision-making involving multiple conflicting prima facie duties.
Step-by-step explanation:
Sir William David Ross criticized classic utilitarianism and deontology for what he viewed as their overly simplistic accounts of morality. Both of these frameworks, according to Ross, reduced complex moral experiences to a single principle, such as Mill's greatest happiness principle and Kant's categorical imperative, and thus failed to adequately explain the plurality and conflicts inherent in our moral experiences. Ross pointed out that moral obligations are not viewed as equally weighty in real-life scenarios and that rigid adherence to one rule can lead to moral dilemmas when multiple obligations conflict.
As an alternative, Ross proposed a pluralistic approach where multiple prima facie duties should be considered, which are obligations that are binding unless they conflict with stronger duties. This approach acknowledges the complexities of moral decision-making, where outcomes, duties, and rules all play a significant role in guiding behavior. In contrast to deontologists such as Kant, Ross believed consequences should not be entirely disregarded when considering our moral duties.