Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 27 of 27
  1. #26
    Esse quam videri ploto's Avatar
    Post Count
    10,994
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    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.

  2. #27
    Basketball Expertise spurster's Avatar
    Post Count
    4,132
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •