Classical Presupposition Audit — W. D. Ross
Classical Presupposition Audit — W. D. Ross
Instrument: Classical Presupposition Audit (CPA) v1.0. Instrument architecture and analysis: Dave Kelly. Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling. Prose rendering: Claude. Sterling/Kelly corpus. 2026.
Subject: W. D. Ross (1877–1971), Provost of Oriel College, Oxford; translator of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics. Primary sources: The Right and the Good (1930); Foundations of Ethics (1939); Aristotle (1923).
Prior corpus standing. Named in the CRI as one of the most fully aligned contemporary philosophers. Named in the SFI as a principal figure in the intuitionist tradition whose Rossian framework Audi explicitly builds upon.
Step 0 — Protocol Activation
Corpus in view. Sources restricted to Ross’s own argumentative record. No prior conclusion stated. Subject is a professional philosopher; the Political Application Constraint does not apply.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 1.
Step 1 — Presupposition Profile
P1 — Non-naturalism as the architecturally central commitment. Ross’s moral philosophy requires that moral properties — rightness, goodness, prima facie duty — are not identical to natural properties and cannot be reduced to them. This non-naturalism is maximally load-bearing: it governs his moral epistemology, his critique of consequentialism and Kantian derivation alike, and his account of the mind’s apprehension relation to moral reality. Every other presupposition in his record is entailed by or required to support P1.
P2 — Prima facie duties as directly apprehended self-evident moral truths. The Right and the Good requires that the duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence are known by direct rational intuition, not derived from a single overarching principle or from empirical observation. Ross explicitly rejects the utilitarian derivation of all moral obligation from a single principle and the Kantian derivation from the categorical imperative: both are attempts to derive what can only be directly apprehended. The mathematical analogy is load-bearing: just as the angles of a triangle are known to sum to 180 degrees by direct rational apprehension rather than measurement, the prima facie duties are known directly by a mind of sufficient maturity and experience attending carefully to the moral situation.
P3 — Genuine agency as presupposed by moral obligation and practical wisdom. Ross’s account of how agents adjudicate among conflicting prima facie duties requires that the judgment about which duty is most stringent in particular circumstances is a genuine exercise of practical wisdom rather than a computational procedure or a determined output of prior causes. Praise and blame, which Ross treats as appropriate responses to moral performance, have no purchase on determined outputs. His structural incompatibilism reinforces this: if moral properties are non-natural and moral knowledge is not natural knowledge, then the agent who acts on moral knowledge is not acting from natural causation alone.
P4 — Correspondence truth as the governing epistemic standard. Ross’s non-naturalism and his intuitionism together require that moral claims are true or false by correspondence to real non-natural properties. His critique of naturalistic definitions of goodness presupposes that moral claims have a determinate truth-value fixed by the non-natural moral reality they either track or fail to track. The intuition either corresponds to a real moral fact or it does not — correspondence is the standard against which its accuracy is assessed.
Stage B — Domain Mapping. P1 bears on C1, C5, and C6: non-naturalism requires a cognitive capacity beyond physicalism (C1), correspondence truth for moral claims (C5), and real non-natural moral properties (C6). P2 bears directly on C3 and C4: direct apprehension of self-evident moral truths is the intuitionist claim (C3) and the foundationalist claim (C4) simultaneously — the prima facie duties are both directly apprehended and epistemically basic. P3 bears on C2: genuine agency required as a structural presupposition of moral obligation and practical wisdom. P4 bears on C5 as the explicit epistemic standard.
C1 and C2 are both carried in as structural presuppositions of P1 and P3 respectively rather than as explicit argumentative commitments in Ross’s own record, which is focused entirely on moral philosophy rather than philosophy of mind or action theory. This distinction is carried into Step 2.
Self-Audit Complete: all presuppositions traced to load-bearing argumentative moves; charity requirement applied at C1 and C2, both noted as structural presuppositions rather than explicit arguments; non-naturalism correctly identified as the architecturally central commitment. Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2 — Commitment Audit
C1 — Substance Dualism. Partially Aligned. P1’s non-naturalism requires a mind capable of apprehending non-natural properties — a cognitive capacity that goes beyond any purely physicalist account of mental states as natural events. Ross’s moral epistemology presupposes that the rational faculty stands in a genuine apprehension relation to non-natural moral reality: the intuition is not a psychological reaction but a rational cognition, which is a presupposition that no purely physicalist account of mental states can supply. The residual is that Ross does not develop an explicit philosophy of mind and does not argue for substance dualism as a position anywhere in his principal texts. The alignment is structural and required by his non-naturalism; the explicit metaphysical commitment is absent. Partially Aligned rather than Aligned on this basis.
C2 — Libertarian Free Will. Partially Aligned. P3 requires genuine agency at multiple load-bearing points in Ross’s framework: the adjudication among conflicting prima facie duties is a genuine exercise of practical wisdom that cannot be reduced to a computational procedure; praise and blame presuppose genuine origination; and his non-naturalism is structurally incompatibilist in the sense that acting from moral knowledge is not acting from natural causation alone. The residual is that Ross does not argue for libertarian free will explicitly and does not address the free will debate directly in his principal texts. The structural requirement is clear; the explicit argumentative commitment is absent. Partially Aligned rather than Aligned on this basis.
C3 — Ethical Intuitionism. Aligned. P2 is the foundational text of twentieth-century moral intuitionism. The direct apprehension of prima facie duties as self-evident moral truths, the mathematical analogy for moral intuition as genuine rational cognition rather than psychological reaction, and the explicit rejection of derivation from single principles all constitute the most fully argued intuitionist position in the analytic tradition. The commitment is load-bearing, explicit, and defended at length. Ross’s treatment of moral knowledge as self-evident to any person of sufficient maturity and experience who attends carefully is the clearest statement of ethical intuitionism in the corpus’s primary sources.
C4 — Foundationalism. Aligned. P2’s prima facie duties are explicitly epistemically basic — foundational moral truths not derived from prior moral claims but the starting points of moral reasoning. Ross’s non-naturalism requires foundationalism: if moral properties are not reducible to natural properties, then moral knowledge cannot be derived from natural knowledge and must have its own foundational starting points apprehended directly by the rational faculty. The mathematical analogy reinforces this: mathematical axioms are foundational, known directly, not derived from empirical premises; moral first principles have the same foundational character. No contrary presupposition qualifies this finding.
C5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth. Aligned. P1 and P4 together require correspondence truth for moral claims throughout. Moral properties are real; moral claims are true or false by correspondence to those real non-natural properties; the intuition either corresponds to the moral fact or it does not. Ross’s critique of naturalistic definitions of goodness presupposes that moral claims have a determinate truth-value fixed by the non-natural moral reality they either track or fail to track. No deflationary or pragmatist qualification appears as load-bearing.
C6 — Moral Realism. Aligned. P1’s non-naturalism is the most uncompromising moral realism in the corpus of audited figures to date. Non-natural moral properties — rightness, goodness, prima facie duty — are real features of actions and states of affairs, not reducible to natural properties, not identical to attitudes, not constructed by rational procedure. His critique of Moore’s consequentialism and utilitarian single-principle theories is not that they are pragmatically unhelpful but that they are morally wrong, a critique that has no force without robust moral realism as its presupposition. His treatment of moral disagreement as resulting from insufficient attention or insufficient experience rather than from the absence of moral facts is the clearest moral realist response to the argument from disagreement in the intuitionist tradition.
Self-Audit Complete: all six commitments audited without selective treatment; C1 and C2 both held to Partially Aligned rather than Aligned on the stated distinction between structural presupposition and explicit argumentative commitment; C3 and C6 both Aligned on the strength of Ross’s own explicit, extended, load-bearing arguments; no finding distributed for apparent balance. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3 — Dissolution Finding
C1: Partially Aligned. C2: Partially Aligned. Neither is Contrary. Per the dissolution rule: No Dissolution.
Ross’s framework does not require those who adopt it to dissolve their prohairesis into an external system. His non-naturalism preserves the genuine reality of the rational faculty as a cognitive power apprehending non-natural moral reality — a picture structurally incompatible with the reductionist physicalism that would dissolve the rational faculty into a natural causal system. His framework’s structural requirement for genuine agency preserves the space for originating choice even without an explicit libertarian argument. An agent who adopts Ross’s framework retains a self-description in which the rational faculty is real, morally apprehending, and the genuine source of practical judgment.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4 — Summary Finding
Part A — Commitment Pattern
| Commitment | Finding |
|---|---|
| C1 — Substance Dualism | Partially Aligned |
| C2 — Libertarian Free Will | Partially Aligned |
| C3 — Ethical Intuitionism | Aligned |
| C4 — Foundationalism | Aligned |
| C5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth | Aligned |
| C6 — Moral Realism | Aligned |
Four Aligned (C3, C4, C5, C6), two Partially Aligned (C1, C2), zero Contrary, zero Inconsistent, zero Non-Operative. No Dissolution. The pattern matches Geach’s (Document 65) in Aligned count, with a different distribution: Ross’s four Aligned are concentrated at C3–C6 (moral epistemology and metaphysics), where Geach’s are at C2, C4, C5, C6. The C1/C2 Partially Aligned findings in Ross arise from the absence of explicit philosophy of mind and action-theory arguments in a record focused entirely on moral philosophy; in Geach, they arise from the hylomorphic residual and the naturalistic-teleological moral-epistemology residual. The gaps are architectural in both cases but for different reasons.
Strongest alignment: C3 and C6. Ross provides the foundational texts of twentieth-century moral intuitionism and the most uncompromising non-naturalist moral realism in the analytic tradition. Deepest point of divergence: C1 and C2, both absent as explicit argumentative commitments in a record structured entirely around moral philosophy.
Part B — Dissolution Finding. No Dissolution. C1 Partially Aligned, C2 Partially Aligned. The framework structurally requires and preserves the space for a self-governing rational faculty without explicitly securing its philosophical ground.
Part C — Agent-Level Implication. An agent who adopts Ross’s framework acquires the foundational texts of moral intuitionism (C3) — the strongest available resource at that commitment among all figures audited to this point — an explicitly foundationalist moral epistemology grounded in self-evident prima facie duties (C4), correspondence truth as the governing standard for moral claims (C5), and the most uncompromising non-naturalist moral realism in the analytic tradition (C6). What the framework does not supply is an explicit philosophy of mind (C1) or an explicit defense of libertarian free will (C2). The rational faculty Ross’s framework requires is fully present as a functional presupposition; its metaphysical grounding is the agent’s own work to complete. An agent working within the corpus who adopts Ross’s framework would find it the strongest available resource for C3 and C6 specifically, while needing to supplement C1 and C2 from outside Ross’s own argumentative record — from Feser’s argued substance dualism, for instance, or from the corpus’s own C1 and C2 primary documents.
Corpus boundary. The CPA issues findings on presuppositions embedded in an argumentative record. It does not evaluate the adequacy of Ross’s prima facie duty framework, the success of his non-naturalism against Moore’s consequentialism, or his standing within analytic moral philosophy.
Self-Audit Complete: summary follows from Steps 1–3 without new material introduced; the comparison to Geach was verified against Document 65’s actual table rather than assumed; agent-level implication addressed to a prospective adopter; corpus boundary declared; summary self-contained. CPA run complete.
Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling. Instrument architecture and analysis: Dave Kelly. Prose rendering: Claude.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home