Responsibility and Moral Luck

Moral Luck Examples1. Is A’s action any worse than B’s?2. Is A more responsible for the death than B?3. Can we judge A to be a worse person than B?4. Should the law hold A and B equally responsible?

Examples: 2 guys, equally at fault, but varying consequences.Ex: 2 drunk guys drive, unlucky driver A hits & kills a child, is arrested, charged w/drunk driving & manslaughter. Lucky driver B hit nobody, but was stopped & given a DUI.Ex: 2 hitmen aim at respective targets. Hitman A hits target, but B’s target is wearing a bullet proof vest & survives. Both arrested, A charged w/murder, B charged only w/attempted murder.Ex: 2 switchmen work for different railroads. Both were to throw a switch at 10am & both got lazy, failed to do so. Unlucky man A’s train was running & the failure to switch tracks train wreck. Lucky man B’s train had engine problems. (Acts of omission, w/consequences.)Ex: 2 firemen trying to save kids through a burning apartment windows. Man A’s child steps on window ledge which collapses due to poor construction & child dies, fireman feels guilty. Man B successfully saved the other child & is celebrated on newspaper as hero.In all 4 cases, A is unlucky & B is lucky. What makes one morally responsible & what does it have to do with luck?

Potential standards of culpability

1. When you actually cause overall bad consequences to happen• Worse consequences = greater culpability

2. When you perform a wrong action• Worse action = greater culpability

3. When you act out of wicked intentions• Worse intentions = greater culpability

Culpability = the degree to which one can be held legally or morally responsible

Two common excuses from culpability

I DIDN’T KNOW! IT WAS OUT OF MY CONTROL!

Ex. hidden stop sign Ex. sleepwalking, or crimes of passion

Kant’s view of moral assessment

Circumstances external to a person should NOT influence our moral judgments of his or her character, action, blameworthiness etc.

The only thing that we have complete voluntary control over are our intentions

Culpability depends on our intentions. (view 2)

“we’re only responsible for our intentions”

Moral Responsibility and Moral Luck

Thomas Nagel

When are your actions morally blameworthy or praiseworthy?• When you are morally responsible for

your actions.• When you exercise control over your

actions

Kant’s ethics assume that we are all equal rational agents participating in morality with an equal opportunity to do and be morally praiseworthy and blameworthy. This is wrong!

Four types of moral luck① Luck in the way your actions and

projects turn out

② Luck in how you have been determined by previous circumstances

③ Luck in the temperament, emotions and personality you have

④ Luck in the circumstances you find yourself in

“If you’re not in control, how can you be responsible for your luck?”“The things we’re proud of & also want to blame others for are largely b/c of luck.”

The Paradox of moral luck

From the external (objective) view we take of the world: our lives are just a series of events occurring in a world we have little or no control over.

From the internal (subjective) view we take of the world: are beings who makes choices and whose lives could never be reduced to a series of events.

Both of these views seem right, but incomplete. They also contradict one another and can not both be true. Together, they’re paradoxical.

Judith Jarvis Thomson Case type 1:

• Harm is caused, but the agent is not at fault

Case type 2: • Agent causes benefit, but does not

deserve any merit for doing so.

Case type 3: • The agent act negligently or recklessly

(at fault), but no harm is caused.

A tale of three truck drivers

Unlucky No Fault Driver Lucky Fault Driver Unlucky Fault Driver

Thomson: No fault driver did not act badly Lucky fault driver acted badly Unlucky fault driver acted worse

because he’s to blame for the death that he caused.

Variables: brakes checked & kid in street

A tale of three truck drivers

General principle: Bad consequence of an action makes that action worse only where the agent is to blame for that bad consequence which his action causes

Objection from “Kantian moral sophisticate”: You can’t blame someone for something caused merely out of bad luck.

Reply: • Unlucky No Fault Driver was unlucky in two ways : (1) that the child ran

into his path; (2) that he couldn’t stop his truck on time. • Unlucky Fault Driver was only unlucky (1). The bad breaks were his fault.

Objection: You can’t blame someone for something that involved any luck – for anything out of their control

Reply: That goes too far. Sure we can!

Summers v. Tice (1948)ACTUAL CASE THOMSON’S REVISED VERSION

Both Tice and Simonson fire their rifles in Summer’s direction with equal negligence

Summers is struck in the eye and sues his two friends for damages

It’s impossible to know which one harmed Summers

Court decides they should split the damages equally

During the trial evidence is presented that shows Summers’ injury came from Tice’s gun.

Simonson acted badly, but is not to legally blame for the injury and should not have to pay damages

Morally, however, we do not think Tice’s action worse than Simonson’s

But we have a problem… Unlucky fault driver did something

worse than lucky fault driver

Tice did not do something worse than Simonson, but he is the one that must pay for the damages

The difference is that Simonson nearly caused the same exact harm as Tice, but the same can not be said for the lucky fault driver

So what do we do about moral luck?

Ignore it? Embrace it?

Split the difference somehow?