Moral Luck

[Blues Man]

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.

And because those things don't happen very often they actually make the argument of moral luck even better

Certainly the guy who has faulty ammo in his gun was as lucky as the guy who just won almost 2 billion dollars.

 

[Bleipriester]

And because those things don't happen very often they actually make the argument of moral luck even better

Certainly the guy who has faulty ammo in his gun was as lucky as the guy who just won almost 2 billion dollars.

1. I don´t think so
2. No, the killer will continue doing his job killing people

 

[Blues Man]

1. I don´t think so
2. No, the killer will continue doing his job killing people

So you can just make up any assumptions you want to argue against anything.

You are inserting your own parameters and assuming that the guy who's gun misfired would still be able to kill.

So then I'll just add a parameter to negate your assumptions.

And the instant after each guy pulled their respective triggers 5 cops walked around the corner are arrested each guy immediately.

 

[Bleipriester]

So you can just make up any assumptions you want to argue against anything.

You are inserting your own parameters and assuming that the guy who's gun misfired would still be able to kill.

So then I'll just add a parameter to negate your assumptions.

And the instant after each guy pulled their respective triggers 5 cops walked around the corner are arrested each guy immediately.

Now you are stuffing your story to make it match your needs. But if the killer is no longer able to kill, we can´t consider that luck.
Luck is per definition something out of human control, there is nothing to discuss about it. If you want to discuss punitive measures, make a thread in "Law and Justice System", and we´ll debate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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?

One should try speaking for themself. The phrase "Safety is no accident" is widely expressed by professionals in many fields. "Innocent until found guilty by a jury of one's peers" is also common wisdom. Stupid people are prejudgmental.

Each confronts a person with the intent of killing that person

They confront each other. Who's moral? Who's lucky?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So you can just make up any assumptions you want to argue against anything.

You are inserting your own parameters and assuming that the guy who's gun misfired would still be able to kill.

So then I'll just add a parameter to negate your assumptions.

And the instant after each guy pulled their respective triggers 5 cops walked around the corner are arrested each guy immediately.

He is trolling...

 

[ding]

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

One is called murder and the other is called attempted murder. So, no. The punishments are doled out on the severity of the outcome.

 

[ding]

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 you could be charged with attempted murder, right? That's a crime. In fact there's a whole host of crimes that one can be charged for attempting. You could be charged with attempted manslaughter, arson, robbery, theft, assault, etc.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

But you could be charged with attempted murder, right? That's a crime. In fact there's a whole host of crimes that one can be charged for attempting. You could be charged with attempted manslaughter, arson, robbery, theft, assault, etc.

Well of course, but the punishment of the two are obviously very different... mostly.
The sentencing murderers get in urban areas can blow your mind.
True story - they even made an episode for 48 hours out of this - a step father went into his 13 year old stepdaughters bedroom. He stripped her, strangled her to death and posthumously raped her.
He was sentenced to 12 years. And he had a prior record. Guess what state? Yep - California.

 

[ding]

Well of course, but the punishment of the two are obviously very different... mostly.

Exactly. So there's no reason to rethink the moral judgment. Each crime receives the punishment it deserves.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Exactly. So there's no reason to rethink the moral judgment. Each crime receives the punishment it deserves.

They don't.
The example I gave.
Where I live... holy shit that dude would have received a life sentence and probably executed.
In California he will be released in just a few years.

 

[ding]

They don't.
The example I gave.
Where I live... holy shit that dude would have received a life sentence and probably executed.
In California he will be released in just a few years.

Sure they do. You even said so.

 

[Blues Man]

Now you are stuffing your story to make it match your needs. But if the killer is no longer able to kill, we can´t consider that luck.
Luck is per definition something out of human control, there is nothing to discuss about it. If you want to discuss punitive measures, make a thread in "Law and Justice System", and we´ll debate.

this thread isn't about punishments it's about moral judgements.

 

[Blues Man]

One should try speaking for themself. The phrase "Safety is no accident" is widely expressed by professionals in many fields. "Innocent until found guilty by a jury of one's peers" is also common wisdom. Stupid people are prejudgmental.

They confront each other. Who's moral? Who's lucky?

Morally lucky not moral or lucky