Do you believe in Moral Luck?

[usckk]

Hey guys,

I'm writing a philosophy paper on this topic. I just wanted some opinions of what you think. Like do you believe in moral luck? Why or why not?

"Moral Luck: A case of moral luck occurs whenever luck makes a moral difference. The problem of moral luck arises from a clash between the apparently widely held intuition that cases of moral luck should not occur with the fact that it is arguably impossible to prevent such cases from arising."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/moralluc.htm

Here's a hypothetical situations:
Do you think luck should be considered when we judge someone's morality? For example, there are two drunk drives. However, one hits and kills a young girl. Should both drunk drives be teated the same morally because one driver was just lucky to avoid hitting a girl? Or should one be more moral than the other because he did not kill anyone? In other words, should they be punished the same or shall one receive a stricter punishment because they actually killed a person.

[exstatic]

Luck and morality have no link. One of your drunk drivers was lucky and the other one wasn't.

[usckk]

But because one was lucky, doesn't that mean both situations were the same? So shouldn't they be punished equally?

[exstatic]

But because one was lucky, doesn't that mean both situations were the same? So shouldn't they be punished equally?
What is NO? They both committed DUI, but only one committed vehicular manslaughter. Why should the punishments be the same?

[E20]

That example is kind of edgy, I'm sure there is a better example out there to be used for something else.

[Walter Craparita]

Both treated equally regardless of outcome.

Except for of course one killing another and the other not.

[usckk]

Walter, if we treated both equally regardless of the outcome, doesn't that mean we should punish both with manslaughter charges?

[ashbeeigh]

Here's a hypothetical situations:
Do you think luck should be considered when we judge someone's morality? For example, there are two drunk drives. However, one hits and kills a young girl. Should both drunk drives be teated the same morally because one driver was just lucky to avoid hitting a girl? Or should one be more moral than the other because he did not kill anyone? In other words, should they be punished the same or shall one receive a stricter punishment because they actually killed a person.

Philosophy gives me a headache and I'm sure I will hardly knick the surface of the history of the issue, but here's how I see the example.

Driver A was not lucky because he hit someone else and may suffer some "moral consequences." He may go through those processes of grieving and everything, guilt, denial, depression, acceptance, etc. As far as other people see this case, he hurt someone else, thus making his actions of drunken driving wrong.

Driver B is one of those cases like "I only hurt myself by doing this." It's more self destructive then anything, kind of psychological in his head. He may be hurting other people around him, but because he didn't hurt anyone during the actual DUI incident he has a lot more "moral luck." This is that bastard who could get away with it again and end up being Driver A, but in about 6 more months when his drinking has gotten fully out of hand.

But, like the start of that link you gave us, does the fact that Driver A hit somebody make him less morally sound or less lucky then Driver B?

I really liked this one quote:


ome are born healthy; others with various sorts of handicaps. Some stumble into great wealth; others work hard, but always remain poor. To those on the losing end of these matters, this often seems unfair. Success of whatever kind we might seek is not equally available to all. Luck gives some head starts and holds others back. Nonetheless, we might think there is at least one sort of value which is equally available to all: moral value. Bill Gates may be richer than me, but that does not mean he is a better person. Donovan Bailey may be faster than me, but that does not make him my moral superior. Of course, both these men may be my moral superiors, but, if they are, luck is supposed to have nothing to do with it. Morality thus provides us with a sort of comfort. In Williams' words, it offers "solace to a sense of the world's unfairness."

And as far as the second guy goes, Nagel, he's kind of seeing it as what other factors might has influenced these two different events? The equality of the crimes is the core of the issue, as I see it, and as Nagel may see it. What other influences were involved? In Driver B's situation they were only "responsible" for one thing whereas in Driver A's situation they were responsible for so much more.



And I'm sure this is really circular and you know already, but that's what I got out of it all.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

So you'd want to punish them on what could have happened as opposed to what actually happened?

http://www.abc.net.au/hobart/stories/m418751.jpg

[Extra Stout]

Accountability has to be based at least partailly on the consequences of one's actions. This is why, for example, the penalty range for attempted murder is not as severe as for murder.

[ploto]

You are mixing two issues-- one is the morality of the behavior of these individuals and the other is the legal punishment for the outcomes of those behaviors. Morally speaking they have both made the same mistake, but legally speaking they have not committed the same crime- hence the different legal punishment.

[BigZak]

the girl was unlucky!

but what the hell was the immorral tramp doing out at that hour anyway!?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I agree with Ex that luck and morality are two totally separate issues. Just because luck intervenes in a situation should not alter its morality.

Ploto said it better than I can, but I think the legal discussion is getting off track because law must be based on things that actually happen - you cannot charge the lucky driver with vehicular manslaughter on the basis that his behaviour increases the likelihood of it happening if it doesn't actually happen.

I did quite a bit of philosophy at uni, but that is a difficult topic. I'll have to think about it further...

[Summers]

They both committed DUI, but only one committed vehicular manslaughter. Why should the punishments be the same?

I agree.

[spurster]

Another issue is that not all DUIs are equally drunk equally often. Some are drunker than others, more often than others, and the consequences are evidence of the difference. Besides, life is unfair.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I don't think the drunk driving example is a good one as they are BOTH morally wrong for drink driving in the first place. This is a better example of moral luck from Wikipedia:

"Given the notion of equating moral responsibility with voluntary action, however, moral luck becomes a problem. This problem is perhaps best illustrated by an example that many moral luck philosophers employ – that of a traffic accident.

There are two truck drivers, Driver A, and Driver B. They are exactly alike in every single way, drive the same vehicle, have the same driving schedule, have the same reaction time, and so forth. Driver A is driving down a road, following all legal driving requirements, when suddenly, a child runs out in the middle of the road to retrieve a lost ball. Driver A slams the brakes, swerves, in short, does everything to try to avoid hitting the child – alas, the inertia of the truck is too great, and the distance between the truck and the child is too short. Unfortunately, the child is killed as the result of the collision. Driver B, in the meantime, is following the same route, doing all the same things, and everything is quite exactly the same – except for one important distinction. In his scenario, there is no child that appears on the road as if out of nowhere. He gets to his destination safely, and no accident occurs.

If a bystander were asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, there is very good reason to expect him to say that Driver A is due more moral blame than Driver B. After all, his course of action resulted in the death of a child, whereas the course of action taken by Driver B was quite uneventful. However, there are absolutely no differences in the controllable actions performed by Drivers A and B. The only disparity is that in the case of Driver A, an external uncontrollable event occurred, whereas it did not in the case of Driver B. The external uncontrollable event, of course, is the child appearing on the road. In other words, there is no difference at all in what the two of them could have done – however, one seems clearly more to blame than the other. How does this occur?

This is the problem of moral luck. If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally, or praised equally, as may be the case. At the same time, this is at least intuitively problematic, as – whatever the external circumstances are – one situation resulted in an unfortunate death, and the other did not."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Another issue is that not all DUIs are equally drunk equally often. Some are drunker than others, more often than others, and the consequences are evidence of the difference. Besides, life is unfair.

Are you thispego in disguise? What are you talking about?

[Oh, Gee!!]

the road to hell is paved with good intentions. that's all you need to know about "moral luck."

[Extra Stout]

I don't agree with Wikipedia's hypothetical. Neither driver acted immorally in the first place, so neither receives blame, though Driver A probably will experience feelings of guilt. If there is any blame, it would lie upon whoever had the responsibility to supervise the child, or if the incident occurred anyway somehow despite adequate supervision, since the child himself lacks the judgment and awareness to be held accountable for his fatal action, the incident can be called a sad accident where none are morally culpable.

The hypothetical in the original post assumes both drivers act immorally, but that the negative consequences of one's actions are worse than those of the other's.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Extra, read the whole Wikipedia entry, that's why I linked it. I don't think the OP fully understands the idea of moral luck, and Wikipedia explains it better and in terms of the primary philosophers who discuss it:

"Moral luck is the phenomenon whereby a moral agent is assigned moral blame or moral praise for an action or its consequences even when it is clear that the agent in question did not have full control over either the action or its consequences. This term was introduced by Bernard Williams, and the question of moral luck – including its significance to a coherent moral theory – has been initially developed by Williams and Thomas Nagel in their essays on the topic."

In order for something to be considered a case involving moral luck there does not have to be immoral action involved.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Good luck with that class helping you find a decent good paying job when you get out of school. I can guarantee you the students in India that are studying accounting, information technology, engineering, etc are not using their time writing papers about moral luck. They are studying for their chosen discipline only.

[CavsSuperFan]

Moral Luck...

Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead & forgave sins...He demonstrated that God was a loving merciful and compassionate God......The religious leaders then nailed him to a tree....

[Extra Stout]

Extra, read the whole Wikipedia entry, that's why I linked it. I don't think the OP fully understands the idea of moral luck, and Wikipedia explains it better and in terms of the primary philosophers who discuss it:

"Moral luck is the phenomenon whereby a moral agent is assigned moral blame or moral praise for an action or its consequences even when it is clear that the agent in question did not have full control over either the action or its consequences. This term was introduced by Bernard Williams, and the question of moral luck – including its significance to a coherent moral theory – has been initially developed by Williams and Thomas Nagel in their essays on the topic."

In order for something to be considered a case involving moral luck there does not have to be immoral action involved.
I do not understand how the case of the traffic accident as described can follow from the explanation of moral luck. What is the voluntary action of the moral agent which led to the child's death? Is it his choice to drive a truck on a public road in the first place? What reasonable person would place blame for that? How is that any kind of moral conundrum?

Now if the driver had taken at least some kind of irresponsible risk, which ordinary people do usually without consequence, such as taking his eyes off the road , then the hypothetical case would make some logical sense. As is, it reads as nonsense to me.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What is the voluntary action of the moral agent which led to the child's death?

Driving drunk.

[Extra Stout]

Driving drunk.
That is in usckk's hypothetical, not Ruff's.

I think this is how philosophers establish their position: muddle up the argument until everybody else gets confused.

[ploto]

If a bystander were asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, there is very good reason to expect him to say that Driver A is due more moral blame than Driver B.

I don't agree with this claim from Wikipedia. I do not think most people would access moral blame on the truck driver who hit the kid.

In the OP example- both acted immorally. In Ruff's example neither did.

[spurster]

Are you thispego in disguise? What are you talking about?
I didn't think I was that opaque. People who take greater risks or take more risks or both will likely have more negative consequences. Perhaps the DUI that ended up a manslaughter was because that person was DUI many times, an accident waiting to happen. Perhaps the DUI that wasn't a manslaughter was because that person was DUI for the first time.

The key words here are "likely" and "perhaps". Every risk might turn out badly. Even driving a truck as safely as possible is a risk. Life is a risk.

It would seem to me that "moral luck" is just the "why do bad things happen to good people?" question from a different angle.