Moral Luck

[Blues Man]

This is a fascinating bit of philosophy. Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel have both written on this subject.

Definition

Moral luck 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.

There can be 4 kinds of luck according to Nagel

I'll just stick to one in this post and maybe we can discuss the others as we go if there is any interest

Resultant Luck.

Simply defined as the way things turn out.

Lets use 2 people who are similar enough in their actions as to be compared. We'll assume they are 2 would be murderers.

Each confronts a person with the intent of killing that person

The first person aims his gun and shoots, hitting his victim in the head killing him

The second aims his gun and shoots and his gun misfires and his would be victim lives.

Now the only difference in the 2 outcomes is an event completely out of the control of both parties but we will judge one much more harshly than the other for no other reason than luck.

Is this difference in judgement justified or should we rethink our moral judgements?

 

[1srelluc]

Sometimes it just comes down to the order......It also reflects on deserves.

 

[Blues Man]

It also reflects on deserves.

But who deserves the worst moral judgment if the intent of both people are exactly the same but when the only difference in outcome is the result of luck?

 

[1srelluc]

But who deserves the worst moral judgment if the intent of both people are exactly the same but when the only difference in outcome is the result of luck?

Remember, Little Bill's demise started with a misfire, there was his chance with luck.

 

[Blues Man]

Remember, Little Bill's demise started with a misfire, there was his chance with luck.

And who gets the harsher moral judgement?

 

[1srelluc]

And who gets the harsher moral judgement?

It does not matter as William Mony is no less the outlaw/killer than when he walked into the saloon. Just luckier to walk out unscathed.

Maybe more terrible to the townsfolk who aren't much of a much themselves.

 

[Blues Man]

It does not matter as William Mony is no less the outlaw/killer than when he walked into the saloon. Just luckier to walk out unscathed.

Maybe more terrible to the townsfolk who aren't much of a much themselves.

The societal law would judge Clint's character more harshly because Gene's character did not kill him due to an unfortunate misfire.

 

[1srelluc]

Then that's not really moral luck

He avenged Ned and luck was part of it. To WM it was the moral thing to do.

 

[Blues Man]

He avenged Ned and luck was part of it. To WM it was the moral thing to do.

Moral luck is more about how society reacts not what a person rationalizes.

Even if Clint was arrested and hanged he would have convinced himself he did the moral thing so his own thoughts on his own actions are irrelevant.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Well your example is a bit too neat and wrapped nicely.
One is attempted murder.
The other is murder.
You can't convict someone of a crime that didn't happen, even if they intended for it to.

Now if you want to argue that the punishment for attempted murder is too lenient, then you have an argument. But to say it should be even with a successful murder... that is something else.

 

[1srelluc]

Moral luck is more about how society reacts not what a person rationalizes.

Then they were skeered.....Just as WM wanted them to be when he rode off.

 

[Blues Man]

Well your example is a bit too neat and wrapped nicely.
One is attempted murder.
The other is murder.
You can't convict someone of a crime that didn't happen, even if they intended for it to.

Now if you want to argue that the punishment for attempted murder is too lenient, then you have an argument. But to say it should be even with a successful murder... that is something else.

But the only thing different was luck. The intent was the same and the result would have been the same in both cases if not for a bit of luck.

So morally is one person to be judged more harshly simply because he was unlucky?

And this has nothing to do with punishments or laws but rather moral judgements of society.

 

[Bleipriester]

This is a fascinating bit of philosophy. Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel have both written on this subject.

Definition

Moral luck 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.

There can be 4 kinds of luck according to Nagel

I'll just stick to one in this post and maybe we can discuss the others as we go if there is any interest

Resultant Luck.

Simply defined as the way things turn out.

Lets use 2 people who are similar enough in their actions as to be compared. We'll assume they are 2 would be murderers.

Each confronts a person with the intent of killing that person

The first person aims his gun and shoots, hitting his victim in the head killing him

The second aims his gun and shoots and his gun misfires and his would be victim lives.

Now the only difference in the 2 outcomes is an event completely out of the control of both parties but we will judge one much more harshly than the other for no other reason than luck.

Is this difference in judgement justified or should we rethink our moral judgements?

The killer whose gun misfires probably did not take good care of his gun. He likely could have avoided the failure. Good luck for both killers, though, as they both get away with their actions because the government is busy defunding "racist" cops.

 

[Blues Man]

Well your example is a bit too neat and wrapped nicely.
One is attempted murder.
The other is murder.
You can't convict someone of a crime that didn't happen, even if they intended for it to.

Now if you want to argue that the punishment for attempted murder is too lenient, then you have an argument. But to say it should be even with a successful murder... that is something else.

If you want we can use something else.

2 men both would be thieves set to rob similar stores by throwing a brick through the window

One breaks the window and steals everything in the store which forces the business owner to have to close shop for good

The other as he is winding up to throw is interrupted by a car accident and has to run away from the scene.

Obviously society would not judge this luck man as harshly as the unlucky one who wasn't interrupted even though the intent was the same and the results would have been the same.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

But the only thing different was luck. The intent was the same and the result would have been the same in both cases if not for a bit of luck.

So morally is one person to be judged more harshly simply because he was unlucky?

And this has nothing to do with punishments or laws but rather moral judgements of society.

That is different, perhaps I misunderstood your argument.
I was thinking of punishment.
Morally - they are the same. I would think of their character as having no difference.
Indeed, morally they are equal.
And I would say society in general would think of the person with the same degree of mistrust and shun.
But punishment is different.

 

[Blues Man]

The killer whose gun misfires probably did not take good care of his gun. He likely could have avoided the failure. Good luck for both killers, though, as they both get away with their actions because the government is busy defunding "racist" cops.

Or maybe it was a manufacturers' defect in the ammo. Maybe the 2 men both bought their illegal guns from the same guy and had no way of knowing if they would fire or not.

I don't want to get into nit picking the examples here instead of actually discussing the topic.

 

[Blues Man]

That is different, perhaps I misunderstood your argument.
I was thinking of punishment.
Morally - they are the same. I would think of their character as having no difference.
Indeed, morally they are equal.
And I would say society in general would think of the person with the same degree of mistrust and shun.
But punishment is different.

Punishment and moral judgement can be considered separately.

But it makes you wonder how many people that society has judged as "good" are just morally lucky.

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe the felony murder rule would be a good example.

Two people break into two different houses with no intent to harm anyone but just to grab a TV

One person gets the TV and gets away unseen
The other just happens to be in a house where the homeowner gets up to go to the bathroom. The surprised homeowner has a heart attack and falls down the stairs.

Obviously the second burglar is the one who will receive the harshest judgement because he will be labeled a murderer while the first might not be judged at all..

All because of luck.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Punishment and moral judgement can be considered separately.

But it makes you wonder how many people that society has judged as "good" are just morally lucky.

Indeed.
In some ways a thief who gets away with a crime because they are smart, plan well and execute their crimes with panache - we tend to view them favorably. Even admire them a bit. (as long as we aren't the victim)
But a common thief who gets away with stealing, such as a looter or shoplifter, we judge them as having low character.

 

[Bleipriester]

Or maybe it was a manufacturers' defect in the ammo. Maybe the 2 men both bought their illegal guns from the same guy and had no way of knowing if they would fire or not.

I don't want to get into nit picking the examples here instead of actually discussing the topic.

Come up with a valid example, then. Such gun failures do not happen often and if you have no way of knowing, you ain´t gonna try. It could be that the shooter was shat at by a dove while aiming, so the shot missed and victim escaped.