Final answer:
A criticism of duty-based ethics, or deontological ethics, is that it might allow acts that reduce overall goodness by adhering to duties regardless of the consequences. While providing clear moral guidelines, it can overlook the importance of the outcomes, leading to ethical dilemmas where strict adherence to duty results in harm. Pluralists like Ross suggest a more nuanced approach with prima facie duties to balance competing moral obligations.
Step-by-step explanation:
A potential criticism of duty-based ethics is that it may permit acts that decrease overall goodness in the world. This ethical perspective, also known as deontological ethics, assesses the morality of an action based on adherence to rules or duties rather than the consequences of the action. The criticism aligns with Option 2: Duty-based ethics may permit acts that decrease overall goodness. Immanuel Kant, a foundational figure in deontological ethics, posited that moral actions are those that adhere to universalizable maxims, leading to the formulation of perfect duties which are obligatory without exception.
While duty-based ethics has the merit of providing clear guidelines for behavior, it can lead to situations where adherence to a duty could result in negative outcomes. For example, the duty to tell the truth at all times could, in some situations, harm an innocent person if their safety depends on deception. Kantian ethics would consider the act of lying to be always wrong, regardless of the potential harm that telling the truth might cause in specific circumstances.
Later deontologists like W. D. Ross acknowledge that consequences should be considered alongside duties to avoid oversimplification in moral assessments. Ross and other pluralists have argued for a more nuanced approach, introducing the concept of prima facie duties, which are important but not absolute, allowing for the balancing of competing obligations in complex moral situations.