PHL225 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Moral Luck
9 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
ii T. Nagel, Moral Luck, Chp. 3, Nagel Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979): 24-38
• Luck should not influence our moral judgement of others and their actions, or our moral
assessment of ourselves
• The good will is only good of itself
• Whether a bad will accomplishes its evil purposes is morally irrelevant, it is the will that
matters - voluntary
• People cannot be morally assessed for what is not their fault, or for what is due to factors
beyond their control
• Whether we success or fail, we can usually tie it back to factors that are beyond our control
o Murder
o Altruism
o Revolution
o Sacrifice
o Any other morally important act
• EXAMPLE: Rescuing a man from a burning building and dropping him from a 12th storey
window to do so
• It seems nothing we do is within our control, but rather is determined by social, cultural, and
environmental contexts
• Is the condition of control false?
• Intuitively acceptable conditions of moral judgement
• If a driver hits a child:
o If the driver is entirely without fault: they do not have to reproach them self
• Agent of regret
• Not a case of moral bad luck
o If the driver was guilty of a minor degree of negligence and that negligence contributes
to the death of the child
• Will blame himself for the death
• An example of moral luck
▪ He could not control whether the child ran out in front of him
▪ If the child hadn't run out in front of the truck, this wouldn't have happened
despite his slight negligence
▪ The negligence is the same regardless of whether the child runs out in front
of the vehicle or not
o If the driver is drunk
• Morally lucky if no pedestrians get hit
• If someone gets hurt he is guilty and completely at fault
• Moral luck refers to factors outside of one's own control
• It is possible to assess one kind of outcome of choice, but not to determine with complete
certainty what will happen
• The outcome of choice and negligence determines the way we perceive the outcome. A
horrible act or a poor mistake?
• How do these ideas change from the perspective that responsibility is dependent on control?
o What is done depends on more than just the agent's state of mind of intentions
• Why is it not irrational to base moral assessment on what people do, rather than on the
outcome of their actions?
o Hold them responsible for their role in the outcome
o What about cases of negligence or failed attempts?
• Can't punish someone for something they haven't done : e.g. murder
• Restricting the domain of moral responsibility to the inner world will not immunise it to luck
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
It seems nothing we do is within our control, but rather is determined by social, cultural, and environmental contexts. If the driver is entirely without fault: they do not have to reproach them self: agent of regret, not a case of moral bad luck. If the child hadn"t run out in front of the truck, this wouldn"t have happened despite his slight negligence: the negligence is the same regardless of whether the child runs out in front of the vehicle or not. If the driver is drunk: morally lucky if no pedestrians get hit. If someone gets hurt he is guilty and completely at fault: moral luck refers to factors outside of one"s own control. It is possible to assess one kind of outcome of choice, but not to determine with complete certainty what will happen: the outcome of choice and negligence determines the way we perceive the outcome.
