Final answer:
Identifying an intentional tort involves understanding the legal liability that arises from one's wrong actions done intentionally. This requires an examination of moral obligations, such as those listed by Ross, and legal responsibilities, like those protected by constitutional guarantees and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ross also emphasized the importance of judgment in resolving conflicts between different moral duties.
Step-by-step explanation:
Identifying an intentional tort involves understanding certain responsibilities and moral commitments. An intentional tort is a legal concept where an individual has committed a wrong intentionally, and the law may assign liability based on certain duties. Ross outlined five primary duties, including the duty of fidelity (to keep promises and be truthful), reparation (to correct wrongs to others), gratitude (to show appreciation), to promote aggregate good (increase overall good in the world), and non-maleficence (to avoid harming others). When considering the legality of an action, it's essential to examine the moral and legal responsibilities involved. The state cannot impair obligation of contracts, abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, or deny due process and equal protection. Additionally, public officials have limited protection against defamatory falsehoods and must prove actual malice to recover damages. In the context of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out fundamental human rights that must be universally protected. Cases such as West Virginia v. Barnette reinforce the importance of balancing personal and civic responsibilities with the protection of civil liberties. Considering the normative ethical theories, it's also crucial to weigh intentions and consequences; something not necessarily wrong by intent may still lead to moral fault if unintended harm is caused—as utilitarianism suggests. Ross believed that duties have different weight, and in situations of conflict, judgment must be exercised to determine the correct action, illustrating the role of judgment in resolving conflicts between duties.