In the article Moral Luck, Thomas Nagel is defending his definition of moral luck and opposing Kant’s view of moral luck. Kant believes that moral luck is the good will and to do our duty by the reasons for our actions. Nagel believes that this theory is too simple. Nagel’s view of moral luck is when outside factors that are out of our control are considered to be reasons for moral judgements whether the actions are good or bad. Good and bad luck should not influence our moral judgement of a person and their actions. There is a problem with Kant’s condition of moral luck which is the conditions of moral judgement. Nagel intuitively believes that people should not be held accountable for their actions morally, if it is not their fault. …show more content…
This luck more looks at your traits and why you did the action you did. An example that Nagel gives us is a truck driver who runs over a child. The truck driver is not at fault for this action, but comes away from the accident feeling terrible. In this case it is not moral luck. What if the truck driver was negligent about checking his brakes and the child dies? This case would be moral luck because he comes out blaming part of the reason on himself. Nagel argues that this second scenario would not necessarily be his fault because how would he know that a child would run in front of his …show more content…
Nagel believes that the difficult choices we me make and the outcome of those decisions cannot be foreseen. An assessment of the choice is possible to make in advance; however, another assessment of choice we must await for the outcome, because the outcome determines what has been done. I believe that Nagel is correct about the assessment of choices with the outcome because you could make a choice before the action happens than there is an unexpected action that happens which you must choose another choice which dictates the outcome of your choice. In Moral Luck, Nagel believes that certain actions are unjustifiably bad within themselves or risky that the outcomes of the action does not make it right. When outcome does play a role in moral judgement than it can be objective and timeless. Kant was insistent on the irrelevance of personality traits within the control of will. If Kant believes that than it would rule out moral judgements of virtues and vices. I disagree with Kant, I believe that when it comes to a good will the outcome and the action is affected by your personality and traits in which could make the will
In this essay, I have defined Nagel’s thesis as the view that death is harmful on the ground that life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation of this good. I have addressed the no positive harms, no subject, and asymmetry objections. I have also provided Nagel’s rebuttal to these objections. Finally, I have evaluated and re-explained Nagel’s persuasive response to the asymmetry objection.
In “Luck Swallows Everything” and “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” Galen Strawson and Susan Wolf’s explain the concept of responsibility in both a compatibilist and determinist view. Strawson argued that change was not possible at all when it comes to responsibility due to an individual’s mental nature, while Wolf argues that change is possible for an individual when it comes to responsibility. This essay will be focusing on the criticism of Wolf’s work.
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Kant says that good will is the only thing that is good. Human’s will, functioning well, is the only thing worth moral approval. It doesn’t matter if the person is smart or courageous if the person has a bad will. If someone is doing something for the wrong reason, but they still have courage doing it, it’s still not moral. The point of reason isn’t happiness, which is opposite from what Aristotle says. Some actions might seem like duties, but are just conformities with duty and because of that have no moral worth. An example we used in class would be the case of the misanthropic philanthropist who hates airports, but goes and helps the refugees because it’s the right thing to do. This shows that happiness doesn’t always come with moral
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Let take a simple example from Nagel’s paper to acquire a brief understanding on the idea of moral luck. Driver A and B were both drunk when driving home. Drive A passed the red light and killed a child who was passing the street while driver B got home safely. To Williams and Nagel, driver A should be, of course, responsible for manslaughter under the laws, but also should be morally treated as the same as driver B since the difference outcomes are solely based on luck. As Williams argues “luck of this kind affects whether he will be justified or not, since if it strikes, he will not be justified” (Williams, p.25). Therefore, in his book “Moral Luck”, Williams introduced a new term “moral luck” referring to “luck that occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control” (Nelkin).
Indeed, I believe that it is neither advantageous nor even logically plausible to accede to either side of this debate: simply admitting to one extreme (e.g., that luck should never be considered when assessing others, or vice versa) automatically creates a multitude of problems. If we do consider luck when assessing someone's moral character, we open ourselves to the very real possibility of punishing two people unequally for the same exact action or intention, which is incompatible with our notion of justice. Yet if we decide that luck should not be a factor, we are in effect embracing the notion that we are not responsible for our actions, and in such a case, punishment would be futile; without legal guilt and punishment, however, society would be chaotic, which again assaults our notion of justice. We shall see that this issue is closely tied in with the more general idea of free will vs. determinism, which itself is a fundamentally disturbing problem. As long as the free will debate remains inconclusive – as most people feel it is – so too will the debate over moral luck remain unresolved.
He emphasizes that such principle is prior to any calculations of the possible outcomes that may occur if the rule is broken.(136) In other words, it is morally wrong to break the rule no matter how good the consequences will be. He then presents the principle in the form of how countries should act in a war: aggression that are directed toward someone can only be justified by something about that person that merits not only the aggression itself but also the type of aggression being used. Without the justification of something about that person, the aggression then will lose the characteristic of personal interaction, which is one of the essential qualities that a war has, and, as Nagel mentioned, will become “purely bureaucratic
In my opinion, Nagel's opinion regarding moral structure in war is a little too narrow-minded. When relating actions in war to absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our moral paradigm. Such positions would not hold ground in issues like the middle-eastern conflict because, with constant attacks from both sides, it is very difficult to assess the right and the wrong by simply evaluating one particular action that country has taken in war. In this particular case, I believe that an assassination and air strike are clear actions for the overall good, however by absolutist terms, Nagel would have a difficult time seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable.
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
To rectify these issues of construed morality, Nagel explores a few options. Nagel states that 'If one of them takes on a public role, he/she accepts certain obligations, certain restrictions, and certain limitations on what he/she accepts' This statement incurs that public officials have distinct authority over the public which maybe construed by personal interests. A plausible theory is to prevent impersonal forces created by institutions. The next option recognizes the discontinuity between individual mortality and public mortality, which will provide either an addition or restriction within varying institutions. Nagel indicated that in his own opinion is that morality should be based on acceptability to each individual responsible for the actions and not hold the whole institution or all parties liable.
Kant is a German philosopher who speaks heavily about the importance of individual duty and autonomy of the will within his work, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the text, Kant guides his readers to live a life of meaning and quality rather than one of little substance and insignificance. His approach to life and how one makes decisions is that of a sound person, who believes and understands that in the end you cannot please everyone, and that as long as you are doing your very best to fulfill your duty you are living a life that has worth and meaning; even if in the end the results are not what you had planned or expected. Unlike Bentham and Mill, Kant teaches his readers that expressing good will and preforming one’s moral duties are the most important factors in leading a happy life, because it produces well-rounded members of society who care about others as well as
Kantianism, which is derived from the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, states that the only thing that is truly good is a good will. A good will is one that acts because of its duty. Kantians asks two main questions. The first question is, “What is unconditionally good?”. When answering this question, Kantians weed out all other possible answers. In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states that, “Understanding, wit, judgment1 and the like, whatever such talents of mind' may be called, or courage, resolution, and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, I but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose distinctive constitution" is therefore called character, is not good (Kant, p 7).” For example, power is not unconditionally good because you can abuse it. Also, money cannot be unconditionally good because you can buy bad things with it. Happiness is not unconditionally good because bad things can make you happy. The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good ...