Are you a morally lucky person?

Post Reply New Topic

In ethics, there is a concept known as moral luck. It is the idea that people can be considered more or less moral for issues beyond their control. For instance, an attempted murderer is not punished as heavily as an actual murderer.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

What do you think about it? Do you feel morally lucky?

"Well, do ya, punk?"

Can't immediately remember an occasion where I simply failed to commit atrocities. Unless you count those times when I start a sandbox type videogame with the intention to blow up some cars, but then find that I'm just not in the mood.

I do remember an incident where I intended to kick someone in the shin, but he kind of wobbled and got hit in the stomach. He was standing on a slope. Morally unlucky, I suppose.

So, you mean that you usually succeed?


HA HA HA!!

This is something I've been confused by a lot.

Maybe they should just attempt to punish people who try but fail to kill?

If guilt depends on men rae then moral rectitude depends on mens bono.

Without good intent there is no moral state to an act.

ruveyn

Well, they do attempt, the issue is that their attempt ends up being successful despite the kill being unsuccessful.

The issue is that people do consider other people morally worse for issues outside of their control.

Reading the link I gave is of some benefit, however, you are implicitly holding up this premise:
(CP) We are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control.

Correct?

The issue is that people do tend in their evaluations to fault people or laud them for things outside of their control. There end up being 4 versions of moral luck.

Resultant Luck. Resultant luck is luck in the way things turn out. Examples include the pair of would-be murderers just mentioned as well as the pair of innocent drivers described above. In both cases, each member of the pair has exactly the same intentions, has made the same plans, and so on, but things turn out very differently and so both are subject to resultant luck. If in either case, we can correctly offer different moral assessments for each member of the pair, then we have a case of resultant moral luck. Williams offers a case of “decision under uncertainty”: a somewhat fictionalized Gauguin, who chooses a life of painting in Tahiti over a life with his family, not knowing whether he will be a great painter. In one scenario, he goes on to become a great painter, and in another, he fails. According to Williams, we will judge Gauguin differently depending on the outcome. Cases of negligence provide another important kind of resultant luck. Imagine that two otherwise conscientious people have forgotten to have their brakes checked recently and experience brake failure, but only one of whom finds a child in the path of his car. If in any of these cases we correctly offer differential moral assessments, then again we have cases of resultant moral luck.

Circumstantial luck. Circumstantial luck is luck in the circumstances in which one finds oneself. For example, consider Nazi collaborators in 1930's Germany who are condemned for committing morally atrocious acts, even though their very presence in Nazi Germany was due to factors beyond their control (Nagel 1979). Had those very people been transferred by the companies for which they worked to Argentina in 1929, perhaps they would have led exemplary lives. If we correctly morally assess the Nazi collaborators differently from their imaginary counterparts in Argentina, then we have a case of circumstantial moral luck.

Constitutive luck. Constitutive luck is luck in who one is, or in the traits and dispositions that one has. Since our genes, care-givers, peers, and other environmental influences all contribute to making us who we are (and since we have no control over these) it seems that who we are is at least largely a matter of luck. Since how we act is partly a function of who we are, the existence of constitutive luck entails that what actions we perform depends on luck, too. For example, if we correctly blame someone for being cowardly or self-righteous or selfish, when his being so depends on factors beyond his control, then we have a case of constitutive moral luck. Further, if a person acts on one of these very character traits over which he lacks control by, say, running away instead of helping to save his child, and we correctly blame him for so acting, then we also have a case of constitutive moral luck. Thus, since both actions and agents are objects of moral assessment, constitutive moral luck undermines the Control Principle when it comes to the assessment of both actions and agents.

Causal luck. Finally, there is causal luck, or luck in “how one is determined by antecedent circumstances” (Nagel 1979, 60). Nagel points out that the appearance of causal moral luck is essentially the classic problem of free will. The problem of free will to which Nagel refers arises because it seems that our actions — and even the “stripped-down acts of the will” — are consequences of what is not in our control. If this is so, then neither our actions nor our willing are free. And since freedom is often thought to be necessary for moral responsibility, we cannot be morally responsible even for our willings. Sometimes the problem is thought to arise only if determinism is true, but this is not the case. Even if it turns out that determinism is false, but events are still caused by prior events according to probabilistic laws, the way that one is caused to act by antecedent circumstances would seem to be equally outside of one's control (e.g., Pereboom 2002, 41-54, Watson 1982, 9). Finally, it is worth noting that some have viewed the inclusion of the category of causal luck as redundant, since what it covers is completely captured by the combination of constitutive and circumstantial luck (Latus 2001).

All of which make some sense, even though they seem ridiculous if one is consistent in their application of the earlier stated control principle.

I was just trying to be funny before XD

Doesn't circumstancial moral luck also apply to the person doing the judging of morality?

Using the same sort of example, in nazi Germany, imagining I was in full support of the genocide I think I would find the killing of jews to be moral... I guess that also involves constituent luck too.

This is very pokemon.

i do believe in karma, good is repayed by good evil for evil

One could argue that it could to some extent. As in, you are in a circumstance where you think it is moral, but you could have been in a circumstance that would have led you to the opposite belief.


I don't know what that means, and I don't know what you are trying to say about the subject.

What kind of person would I become if all our prosperity came to an end and our food supply suddenly broke down?

I don't even want to know the answer to that.

Hm.... ok, let's go through this.

First step: look at a baby. If you don't have one near by, then look online for one.

Second step: After you have completed the first step, think about how cute that baby is, and how precious it is, and what amazing things this child could do when it grows up.

Third step: Now imagine that you have killed this child, are covered with its blood, and eating the child's flesh as quickly as you could.

See how horrible you would be?

Well that seems to be man's predicament, once the resources are completely driven away...

In a famous Australian novel the son of a wealthy colonist is talking to the son of a convict.

He said "My father never stole anything from anyone"

The convict's son replied "Of course not. He always had money. He never needed to steal"

first, the constitutional luck (or whatever the term is, you can't glance back up at the posts when typing your reply);

many, many times in my life i've thought how very lucky i am that a lot of bad stuff simply doesn't appeal to me. the few things that have, i've done them. again, very luckily, those were minor things, debatable if even "morally wrong" (but certainly socially/legally frowned on). i've long assumed that if my temperament were different, i'd suck as bad as the next person with "bad morals" because i have no superhuman powers of self-restraint.

that people find me very ethical and kind: pure luck.

as to karma: as a long time buddhist, i'll just note that (a) people's karma is mixed. you have many causes for karma, not everything ripens at once. besides the internal karma for something, there must be the condition (circumstance) for it to happen. the example of a nazi guy getting transferred to argentina is like that: had they been transferred, they condition for their actions in germany would have been removed. the internal karma would remain, tho, unless they worked it out thru various means.

time, i'm saying, and place are also factors in karma.

also, its my understanding that for the *full* karma of any action (good or bad, but let's use the example of bad), it takes four things: 1. you want to do the thing 2. you take action to do it 3. you succeed and 4. you're glad you've done it.

so take theft, for example. stealing because you're starving will still leave some karma (ie, an impression on your brain, that influences your life), but obviously you're not pleased you've stolen, you're just hungry. killing in self-defense isn't going to generate the same kind of karma as killing from anger or whatever.

it's deeper than that, actually a very broad, subtle topic. for instance, my temperament is seen, from certain viewpoints, as a result of *good* karmic seeds (origin: that's another long topic, so i'm not going there). being born into nazi germany as one who grows up to become a nazi? *bad* karmic seeds (its considered not such hot karma to be born in places suffering famine, repression, and so on. and for the future, worse if you're on the perp end of the stick in the case of manmade troubles).

anyway, i love philosophical discussion, but more if its the kind you can actually apply to your life, and i'm no authority on anything, but cool topic.

This hasn't been active in a while, but it's a great thread. About moral luck, if you wanna call it that, I'm a heavy believer that people are at the mercy of their brain chemistry, experience, and circumstance. If somebody is born with predatory nature, and natural skills to manipulate others to get what they want, can you blame them for utilizing the advantage nature gave them? Just yesterday, I thought, had I been born neurotypical and gorgeous, I most likely wouldn't have the same capacity for empathy- why would I need it? My moral compass would be a little different. That's a small example, but you kinda get where I'm coming from.