Moral Luck

Introduction

Moral Luck is the idea that whether a person (agent) is morally good or morally bad can be influenced by factors outside of his or her control. For example, say that a person is hanging out on top of the Empire State Building with his friend. We both throw pennies off the top of the building. By chance, his friend's penny lands on the sidewalk whereas his penny hits an aging grandmother on the head and kills her. If moral luck is real, then his action is morally worse that his friend's action. If moral luck is not real, then both of our actions have the same moral value. The general question is whether we can assess a people's morality based on things that are outside of their control.

There are four kinds of moral luck (Williams, pp. 20). Outcome luck is just luck about the way our actions turn out. For example, when a person plays Russian roulette, it is a matter of outcome luck whether he lives or dies. Circumstantial luck is luck about what kinds of situations or circumstances are presented to us. For example, it is a result of circumstantial luck whether a person have access to a gun. Constitutive luck is luck about what kind of person an individual is. Namely, the temperament, capacities and inclinations that he has are the result of luck. For example, the fact that a person has a strong desire to play Russian roulette is a result of constitutive luck. Causal luck is luck about how he has been causally determined by previous events and actions. This is really a mix of circumstantial luck and constitutive luck. For example, it is a matter of luck if a person's unlucky desire to play Russian roulette and his access to guns both cause him to actually play Russian roulette.

Discussion

The problem of moral luck is the problem of ethics that arises in many cases, it seems correct to morally evaluate an agent even though a significant portion of that for which it is evaluated depends on factors beyond their control. Such situations are called moral luck, and conflict with a principle intuitive moral, called the principle of control (Steadman, pp. 69), whereby an agent is morally assessable only to the extent that that for which it is evaluated depends on factors under your control.

Moral luck is what a person gets when one commits a negligent act and this is of no consequence, or it does not harm anyone. For example, a person driving your vehicle at a speed not permitted and lack produces no accident. A pharmacist sells the wrong medication distracted and did not cause any disruption to the customer. A doctor risks making an unconventional treatment to a patient and saves his life, but also could have died. People are generally judged more harshly when they are responsible for causing serious harm by their actions; whereas, when their action does not harm anyone.

This paradox, that we are responsible both for ...