Rossian pluralism asserts that there are multiple things that we have fundamental and intrinsic moral reasons to do, which it describes as primal duties facie. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow in all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject depending on one's situation. This moral theory has been subject to criticism, particularly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be overlooked as a valid objection to Rossian pluralism, because it also applies to other theories and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than otherwise. The prima facie duties listed by William David Ross include the duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, personal development, and non-maleficence. Duties of fidelity and reparation are based on previous acts one has performed, and the performance of these duties is acts such as keeping a promise (duties of fidelity) and making reparation for previous wrongful acts (duties of reparation) , while duties of gratitude are based on previous acts that others have performed. There is a duty associated with the distribution of pleasure or good regardless of its recipient, and this is called duties of justice. An additional duty is based on the simple fact that there are other beings in this world to whom we can be useful: duties of beneficence. Duties of self-improvement assert that there are intrinsic moral reasons to improve oneself and, finally, duties of nonmaleficence assert that there are intrinsic moral reasons not to harm others. Duties are only put on the list when they have been judged to be a fundamental moral reason...... middle of paper ... with which you live your life. Works cited Gaut, Berys. “Ragbags, Conflict, and Moral Pluralism.” Utilitas 11 (1): 37-48. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, winter term 2014. Additional reading – Ethics. University of Alberta e-classroom. Hooker, Brad. “Ross-style pluralism versus rule-consequentialism.” Mind 105 (420): 531-552. Internet. http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/420/531.full.pdf Mcnaughton, David. “A bunch of unrelated tasks?” The Philosophical Quarterly 46: 433-447. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, winter term 2014. Additional reading – Ethics. Electronic course from the University of Alberta. Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Course notes for the winter 2014 term – Ethics. University of Alberta.Ross, William D.. “What Makes Good Act Good?” » Right and Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. 753-760. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, Readings for the winter 2014 term – Ethics. University of Alberta Online Courses.