Study Guide
Common intuition tells us that two elements must be present in order for us to assess the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of an agent's action. If an agent knowingly and voluntarily did the action, then her action is morally assessable.
Alternatively, as Dana Kelkin puts it: "we are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control."
The case of luck, however, might put this into question. As Thomas Nagel says, "it is intuitively plausible that people cannot be morally assessed for what is not their fault, or for what is due to factors beyond their control." Bernard Williams shares the same sentiment when he says, "Scepticism about the freedom of morality from luck cannot leave the concept of morality where it was."
Luck, here is defined broadly, as anything that has directly or indirectly influenced one's action despite being beyond one's control. For example, good opportunities abound in your life because you were born with a particular set of circumstances. These circumstances make you the person that you are despite such being beyond your control.
Ordinarily, however, we still make moral assessments despite the existence of luck. We blame those who were successful in doing something wrong more than we blame those who have merely attempted to do so. We praise those who were successful in doing something right more than we praise those who have only attempted to do so. As Nagel puts it, "Where a significant aspect of what someone does depends on factors beyond his control, yet we continue to treat him in that respect as an object of moral judgment, it can be called moral luck."
As Andrew Latus puts it, the existence of luck seems to generate the following puzzle. On the one hand, common intuition tells us that "luck must not make moral differences." We are blamed or praised just for things we have done. On the other hand, "the fact is that luck does seem to make moral differences." Lucky circumstances factor in our moral assessments. Either we go with our common intuition or accept that in making our moral judgments, as everything else in life, luck plays a crucial role.
Key Questions
Is there such a thing as moral luck?
Should luck really affect our judgments of moral responsibility?
Should we blame a would-be murderer whose attempts are foiled by luck the same way that we blame someone who happens to succeed in killing?
Suggested Readings and Materials
