We enjoyed the educational elements, the opportunity to get perspective on the procedural items, but some wished that could have been explored in more depth. Further, when it comes to the difficult subject matter, some thought that while it is a modern play, there is room in 2022 for a more nuanced conversation. Although the most interesting part of the book for me was his discussion of prima facie duties, I was not persuaded by the key elements of his interpretation of Ross. One way in which I disagree is philosophical, and the other is exegetical. The philosophical disagreement pertains to his understanding of the moral/non-moral distinction. I agree that prima face duties are best understood as moral reasons, but I don't think his account of the moral/non-moral distinction is persuasive.

According to sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint, and according to sub-section (2) of the same section, facts must be established by affidavit in every plaint. An example of prima facie evidence in a civil case

In the final chapter Phillips considers Ross's metaethics and epistemology. He broadly endorses the former, but is critical of the latter. The epistemology Ross inherited from Cook-Wilson and Prichard is, he argues, too dogmatic, and his claims about the special epistemic status of judgements of prima facie duty are indefensibly strong. Tessa's mum is based on Miller's own mother, Elaine Miller, who had been a homemaker before becoming the first female mayor of St Kilda. Elaine died right before the play opened, of ovarian cancer.

Turning Sydney's courts of law into a different kind of stage, Suzie Miller's (Sunset Strip, Caress/Ache) taut, rapid-fire and gripping one-woman show exposes the shortcomings of a patriarchal justice system where it's her word against his. This provides a basis for human rights - it forces due regard to be given to the interests of a single person even when those are at odds with the interests of a larger group. Since I don't want there to be a rule that lets people break promises they make to me, I can conclude that it would be wrong for me to break the promise I have made. One of Miller's grandmothers was an actress in musical theatre, and played piano for silent films — though she was given an ultimatum by her prospective husband (Miller's grandfather): a choice between her performance career or marriage. So although I agree with Phillips that principles of prima facie duty are best understood as principles specifying which facts give us moral reason to act in certain ways, I am not persuaded by his account of the moral, and if this is a correct interpretation of Ross, then I think Ross is wrong on this point. How to characterise the moral/non-moral distinction is notoriously hard, and it is not clear what the alternative would be, or even if we need an alternative so long as we can distinguish the moral from the non-moral. But it seems to me that an account in terms of content is not promising.

The Sydney Morning Herald

But perhaps the selfish/moral distinction only applies to practical reasons rather than to evaluative or epistemic ones. Could there be non-selfish practical reasons that are not moral? On the face of it, it looks like there are. Suppose I set myself some worthwhile goal. If the goal is valuable, then I have reason to take steps to realise it. But the goal need not be morally worthwhile, and the reasons it involves need not be moral reasons. Suppose the worthwhile goal is to get a better understanding of some period of history. The reasons I have to pursue this goal are provided by whatever it is that makes this goal worth pursuing. That may be the fact that acquiring such knowledge will benefit me, but it need not be. And it is quite plausible to suppose, as Scanlon does, that this goal could only benefit me if it is good on other grounds. If that is right, the reason that grounds its value could not be selfish in the specified sense. But it is also not a moral reason. So the moral and the unselfish come apart. There was a top QC [Queen's Counsel] defence lawyer there who said, 'Well, I do this every day. But if it was my niece, or my goddaughter [who was the victim of a sexual assault], I'd say never, ever take it to court'," Miller recalls

Accepting the Tony award, Comer said: "Without her [Miller], my performance would not be here, so this feels just as much Suzie's as it is mine." Consequentialist theories don't pay direct attention to whether an act is carried out with good or bad intentions; most people think these are highly relevant to moral judgements. To see this, consider an act that would benefit me as well as someone else. A natural way to decide whether my act would be selfish is not to ask what I would do, but why I would do it. Plenty of non-selfish acts benefit the agent. What would make my act selfish is not the fact that it would benefit me, but whether I did it because it would benefit me, or because it would benefit the other person. So what makes this act selfish is not determined by what I did, but by why I did it. Also, it is not clear that the selfish and the moral are contradictories, for some non-selfish reasons are not moral. The fact that a 100m runner is the fastest in the world gives me reason to admire his athletic abilities, and to persuade others that they should admire him. But the fact that he is the fastest 100m runner in the world is neither selfish nor moral. There are many other examples as well, especially if we include reasons to believe.A prosecution merely needs to present reliable evidence in support of each element of a crime to establish a prima facie case. To achieve a conviction, the prosecution must show the defendant’s guilt on each factor beyond a reasonable doubt. What is the prima facie proof standard? While the standard of proof for prima facie evidence is low, it is nevertheless an important part of the legal process. By making the plaintiff present a basic version of their cases, people are protected against frivolous or abusive lawsuits. A polemical monologue which makes its point in style… the cumulative effect is quite something' The Times The Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur means the object speaks for itself. The primary distinction between prima facie and res ipsa loquitur cases is that prima facie cases require numerous pieces of evidence to be valid and go to trial. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, on the other hand, states that the facts of the case are self-evident and do not require any supporting evidence to make them so. How do you establish a prima facie case? Because duty-based ethics is not interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that produce a reduction in the overall happiness of the world.