I think that Ross's deontological view is better than particularism. The starting point is about differences between these ethical theories. Deontology is focused on adherence to independent moral rules or duties, while particularism is based on the idea of absence of irrelevance of moral principles. As one can assume, the key notion of both theories are the moral principles.
As mentioned earlier, my claim is that deontology is better and there are few reasons for that. Firstly, moral principles are necessary to the society, as they provide some order in it. If society as a whole followed one set of moral rules it then would be more organized. The parallels are noticeable in any law system around the world. Laws are some sets of rules that people accept to maintain some order in their surrounding. For instance, the first civilizations that developed from tribes thousands of years ago had to prohibit stealing to progress further. At some point of its existence, society must join its efforts and accept some rules to guarantee its survival.
Secondly, people need some moral limitations and norms. For instance, when raising the children, parents have to teach them how to behave well. Without such rules, there would be chaos in society, for everyone would do what he/she believes is good. To contribute to society, an individual must judge his/her actions in the context of societal and ethical norms.
Finally, particularism leads to moral relativism. What is good for one person might be bad for another. Particularists do not accept the correctness common statements. For instance, “to beat a woman is immoral” or “to help someone is a good thing”. This ethical theory also leaves its adherents, dealing with the burden of judgment back on them. It leaves them vulnerable to self-deceptions, to the turmoil of their duties and commitments. Having no ethical guidelines, they face the difficulties of doing the right thing. For the reasons mentioned, Ross’s deontology view seems more acceptable to me, and better than particularism.