The philosophers Williams and Nagel have recognized a problem wherein moral assessment is based on forces outside human agency: called the problem of moral luck. As I find both philosopher’s solutions unsatisfactory, I will propose a superior settlement to the problem of moral luck by defining what is meant by moral luck, as well as by analyzing William’s control principle alongside Nagel’s ‘solution’. I argue that there must be acceptance of luck as a force of the universe, with individual’s moral accountability being determined on the risks that they take, and their understanding of the dangers of these risks.
First, this segment of the essay will address what is meant by ‘moral luck’. Morality is the distinction between good and bad actions,
…show more content…
The control condition wants to assess an agent only by actions within their control (Williams, 139). This sounds better than it performs (revise). Consider Williams’ example of the truck driver, now imagine that there are two of them, both with faulty brakes which they neglected to check (124). One encounters and slaughters a young girl crossing the street, while the other does not. In this case, the control condition states that the truck driver not be morally assessed as the only difference between this result, and the result of the other driver was the fact that the girl was in there. Clearly, the control condition cannot be applied to all scenarios; however, the control condition is not that easy to shake, for a lot of things rely on its existence. Nagel believes that 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” for, “a judgement is different from the evaluation of something as a good or bad thing” (138). What he means is that one is blamed for their action, not their character in a situation of moral luck, and if their agency is reduced in the face of fate, surely their moral assessment can also be reduced (Nagel, 138). In part, the control condition allows there to be a distinction between moral and non-moral judgements of …show more content…
Nagel recognizes luck as out of one’s control; I argue that all individuals embrace the fact that luck is a law of nature. Gravity keeps us rooted on the Earth, and many (who dream to fly) might consider this a problem—but what can they do except accept their situation? Consider this: an individual is demolishing his balcony, seeing that there is no one below, he tosses the junk off into his yard. The laws of gravity dictate that the junk will fall straight down, and the laws of luck dictate that his wife could walk out from underneath the balcony to be struck by the falling debris. Certainly there is no knowing whether one will be lucky or not, but when partaking in situations that could result in a bad outcome, they must embrace the fact that luck may not be on their
In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.
Instead of Greco's claim that 'we' should credit those with knowledge for getting something right, the Sea Race Objection example shows that luck is creditable and intrinsically tied to other knowledge, how ever vague the connection or 'tightly tied' they may be. If this argument holds, then the backbone of Greco's virtue reliablist claim collapses. A further application of the Sea Race Objection would be that luck is virtious, yet this paper is not making that claim. An objection to the Sea Race Objection example that fits Greco's framework is that knowledge is an achievement, while luck is not. Yet, if Muriel wins the race through luck, that is an achievement made by the lucky. In short, knowledge is compatible with luck. This point will be further examined in future work.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.
As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsible for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualifies as a human act. The Libertarian view consists of one’s actions not being determined; however, have free will, which is a precondition for moral responsibility. Basically put, human acts are not determined by precedent causes. Libertarianism is one of the views under incompatibilism along with Hard Determinism. The opposite of these views is Compatibilism.
“Moral requirements are based on standards of rationality” (Johnson). Rational thinking allows us to determine right from wrong. This conscious decision leaves one with a choice of whether or not to act upon it. Understanding that a certain action, or lack thereof, will lead to negative consequences yet deliberately choosing such action is the bases of moral culpability. However, subjectivity of ethics and philosophies such as utilitarianism prove that moral culpability is entirely 2-dimensional and cannot account or explain the wide range of conflicting morals and ethics. An action can not be convicted as morally culpable because morals are entirely subjective and cannot be classified as right or wrong.
Chisholm responds to this dilemma in a way that most others do not think of. He says that there is a third category, in which most libertarians agree, that humans are free to make their own decisions. Chisholm also has a problem with agreeing to the relationship between moral responsibility and determinism. In this paper, I will be arguing that Chisholm’s idea of humans being responsible agents is true and that there should be a third category in the dilemma of determinism.
In the book, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston shares his exploration in the myriad of ethical issues that we as a population have discussed and disagreed upon every day since the beginning of time. Within A Practical Companion to Ethics Weston describes several different ways that one can be mindful thinkers.
A disturbing thought about man’s ethical barometer is that most of the theories, categories and principles emanate from the point of man’s reason. There is a cause to shudder at the thought of man as the absolute authority of what is right and wrong; what is ethical and what is not. Born into a sinful nature, man will ultimately make decisions that will lead to a moral philosophy that is shaky at best. Even philosophers with the best of intentions fall short to God’s model for the order, organization, and meting out of ethical actions. Because of man’s finite vision of what should be done to improve the present situation, mankind will always be found lacking in making the best ethical decisions; not being able to see the long term outcome and the impact those decisions and actions would have on others in the world.
Taking this to be true, Kaufman argues that there is every reason to believe that on the whole our moral judgments will tend to be true. Furthermore, when we take the moral realist’s argument that morality has a deep connection with human flourishing, there are evolutionary reasons, Kaufman believes, for believing that there is a connection between moral judgments and actions that for the most part promote our well being.
How often should an individual be confronted with those three words in a lifetime? What makes them pick one or the other? Is the right decision dependably fundamentally the ethical decision? Who chooses what is correct or off-base? These are every single significant question in this battling issue in life. Could the confidence in karma be sufficient for one to lead a "decent" moral presence? The finger is constantly pointed towards one 's self interest and one 's result of their choices. In Thomas Nagel 's paper, Right and Wrong, Nagel endeavors to clarify the distinctions and the contemplations behind good and bad choices. He makes references to individual advantages, religion, and disciplines of choice making. Nagel 's paper really characterizes manners of thinking and how individuals come to choose life decisions and pathways for their
The conclusion presented by Nagel is that the theory of obligation can explain special features of public morality. Also those individuals can take steps to restrict certain choices. Nagel also concluded that the institutional structure shields indi...
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant each made a significant break from other theorists in putting forward a morality that doesn’t require a higher being or god, for a man to recognize his moral duty. Although Hume and Kant shared some basic principals they differed on their view of morality. In comparing the different views on human will and the maxims established to determine moral worth by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, I find their theories on morality have some merit although limited in view.