Final answer:
In law, negligence encompasses a duty to act, breach of duty, causation, and damage. In moral philosophy, W.D. Ross recognized similar responsibilities through prima facie duties. These concepts both emphasize the importance of judgment in situations involving conflicting duties or responsibilities.
Step-by-step explanation:
When we discuss negligence, we often refer to legal responsibilities and liabilities, particularly in the domain of tort law. The term 'negligence' encompasses several elements: a duty to act, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage. This concept has parallels with the moral philosophy of W.D. Ross, who delineated various prima facie duties, which include a duty of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, promoting good, and non-maleficence. According to Ross, these duties are not absolute but provide a framework for understanding our moral commitments.
Let's consider a scenario to clarify these terms: A company's failure to fix known brake defects in their cars can lead to a legal case of negligence. There's a duty to act, implied by the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure safe vehicles. When the company ignores the defects, it's a breach of duty. If the cars cause accidents, there's a clear relation (causation) between that breach and the ensuing harm (damage). Morally, under Ross' framework, the company has failed in its duties of non-maleficence and reparation.
Ross believed that in situations with conflicting duties, such as choosing between helping an injured person or keeping a prior engagement, judgment must be applied to identify which duty holds more weight under the given circumstances. The aforementioned company, therefore, had a moral obligation to prioritize the duty of non-maleficence over any financial concerns. Their judgment failed by not preventing the foreseeable harm.