Moral dilemmas and prima facie duties: specifying and balancing
- Topic
A prima facie duty binds unless it clashes with a stronger one; in a dilemma the norms must be made concrete and weighed in the case.
What it is
The philosopher W. D. Ross (The Right and the Good, 1930) proposed that moral duties are prima facie: each is a real reason to act, but it can give way to a stronger duty in a particular situation. The actual duty is the one that, looking at the whole case, carries the most weight. A moral dilemma arises when two duties call for incompatible acts. Bioethics has two tools for working through it. Specifying means making a general norm more concrete, saying when, how and for whom it applies, so the clash disappears or shrinks. Balancing means comparing the weight of the norms in that case and justifying which one prevails. Even when a duty gives way, it does not vanish: it leaves obligations to repair or explain. This page develops the idea of «prima facie» that «The four principles» summarises.
Key facts
- Ross's prima facie duties: fidelity (keeping promises), reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement and non-maleficence.
- Ross held the duty not to harm to be generally stronger than the duty to do good, but he set no absolute ranking.
- An epistemic conflict (not knowing which duty weighs more) differs from a genuine dilemma (neither duty is cancelled by the other).
- Henry Richardson proposed specification (1990) as a way to reduce the indeterminacy of principles.
- The four principles of bioethics are prima facie duties: none wins every time.
Structure
- Step 1: name the duties that clash and to whom each is owed.
- Step 2: try to specify: is there a more precise wording of the norms under which both are met?
- Step 3: if the clash remains, balance with explicit reasons relevant to the case.
- Step 4: choose the option that infringes the yielding duty least and has a real chance of achieving its aim.
- Step 5: deal with the residue: explain, repair and learn for future cases.
Specifying and balancing
| Tool | What it does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Specifying | Makes the general norm concrete (who, when, how) | «Respect confidentiality unless there is a serious risk to an identifiable third party» |
| Balancing | Compares the weight of clashing norms in the case | The autonomy of a patient with capacity outweighs beneficence when they refuse treatment |
| Dealing with the residue | Recognises what the overridden duty still requires | Explain, offer alternatives, repair the harm |
In clinical practice
- Confidentiality versus protecting third parties: specifying the norm («confidentiality is kept unless there is a serious, concrete risk to an identifiable person») reduces the conflict.
- A patient with capacity refuses useful surgery: beneficence gives way to autonomy, but it still requires offering alternatives and care.
- If a doctor misses a promised appointment to attend an emergency, the duty of fidelity leaves a duty to give notice and reschedule.
- When beds are scarce, balancing must use public criteria applied equally, not the doctor's preference.
Legal framework in Colombia
- Law 23 of 1981 specifies general duties: for example, art. 7 allows a doctor to decline to treat a patient only outside emergencies and for concrete reasons.
- Law 1751 of 2015 (art. 17) recognises professional autonomy to decide within ethics, rationality and evidence: clinical balancing takes place inside that frame.
- Official texts checked on 2026-11-13 in the Función Pública Gestor Normativo; Law 1751 of 2015 was checked on 2026-11-05.
Test yourself
Think of the answer, then tap the question to see it.
What does it mean for a duty to be prima facie?
It truly binds, but it can give way to a stronger duty in a particular case; none wins every time.
What is the difference between specifying and balancing?
Specifying makes a norm's scope concrete to reduce the clash; balancing compares the weight of the norms in the case and justifies which prevails.
What remains when a prima facie duty gives way to another?
A moral residue: the overridden duty still asks for explanation, repair or alternatives, such as giving notice and rescheduling a missed appointment.
Who proposed prima facie duties, and in which work?
W. D. Ross, in The Right and the Good (1930).
Connections
Educational content on ethics and health law; not legal advice. Laws and case law change: each page links the official text and says when it was last checked. For a real case, read the text in force and ask a lawyer or the medical ethics tribunal.
Sources: William David Ross (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022); Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022); Bioethics and Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2026); Ley 23 de 1981, por la cual se dictan normas en materia de ética médica (Función Pública, Gestor Normativo, 1981); Ley Estatutaria 1751 de 2015 (Función Pública, Gestor Normativo, 2015).
Spotted a mistake?We are always improving for the community. Tell us what is wrong and our team will review it.Report a mistake
Representative model, for educational purposes only.