, Campinas, v.39, n.1, pp. Nagel, , ‘Moral Luck’, 25, and Williams, , ‘Moral Luck’, 21. The good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of << I focus on Thomas Nagel's claim that moral luck reveals a paradox, and argue that the apparent paradox emerges only because he assumes that attributions of responsibility require agents to have total control over their actions. 2016. morally responsible for what he is and is not responsible for. In Nagel’s paper, titled Moral Luck, he defines moral luck as when one’s actions lead them to be treated as an object of moral judgement, despite significant factors which strip them of the condition of control (Nagel, 26). 0000038405 00000 n xڤ� |T��~�}�23o�5��L2I� ! 0000000882 00000 n >> /Length 2855 Nagel’s entire discus-sion of moral luck is predicated on the idea that there is a clash between a pretheoretic assumption that nothing outside of our control can affect our moral assessibility and the various examples of moral luck (Nagel 1979, 25). 0000001220 00000 n Why can’t it just be an important sort of value (and, according to what value are the various sorts of value to be ranked anyway… %PDF-1.5 K ��l"�E 2d!l���EDE[�ZW\� ҚR�u��j]�P���Qj)�B&�s� ��~���,�{�9�{ι�>�B:jB2g,�����`��a׌�Kc,��r��#$�_�h���O���d!������ڿ�z�!� �͜3k������[.�{��;\���vl�Y�tť�����{�_�p��gfm������GL_��K���E��~��Y�N�ۛ����K�J�䑰 �@�-���̡�ZsBj'�Èև�a�~0���\IV���6��p��/��! MORAL LUCK B. Corollary to the CP: Two people ought not to be morally assessed differently if the only other differences between them are due to factors beyond their control. 0000026710 00000 n Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. x�}�OHQǿ�%B�e&R�N�W�`���oʶ�k��ξ������n%B�.A�1�X�I:��b]"�(����73��ڃ7�3����{@](m�z�y���(�;>��7P�A+�Xf$�v�lqd�}�䜛����] �U�Ƭ����x����iO:���b��M��1�W�g�>��q�[ Nagel sees this as, “the problem of moral luck.” A persons moral standing should not be affected by luck or chance, and the fact that luck plays such an essential role in determining whether a person is “good” or “bad,” morally, in the eyes of his peers is an inaccurate judgment. ), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), URL = Int. Ȫ{�W�%��H7d(� �١.������h� �����i��XgÀC�n:�:CB�(�[*M���ﻜx;��ҡ�j��_4�R��T���U�a� td����%OfьK�μ_ l��� ������^9;k���7�T�s�[R�E��ŞƓ��`�#���] d�ۀ��l�Q�~$���×?�� �1��XP��]$=~oJ��Y���xbx�0k� Start studying Nagel: Moral Luck. In this essay, Kant’s view repre-sents the objection to Nagel… 0000002052 00000 n /Metadata 5 0 R Moral Luck Thomas Nagel Kant believed that good or bad luck should influence neither our moral judgment of a person and his actions, nor his moral assessment of himself. Fil., Campinas, v.39, n.1, pp. Nagel identifies this as a philosophical problem, because in his account "there are roughly four ways in which the natural objects of moral assessment are disturbingly subject to luck" (451). The idea that morality is immune from luck finds inspiration inKant: Thomas Nagel approvingly cites this passage in the opening of his 1979article, “Moral Luck.” Nagel’s article began as areply to Williams’ paper of the same name, and the two articlestogether articulated in a new and powerful way a challenge for anyonewishing to defend the Kantian idea that an important aspect ofmorality is immune from luck, or independent of what is outside of ourcontrol. endstream Int. 0000002018 00000 n Quoted from the revised version reprinted in Thomas Nagel, Mortal Questions. /Type /Catalog �n�|yP4J�,\y������k���K���^���7��8�{�1x)%�c�b$���w&�����S��{�N�pO�/�gż��N;p$�~�~�~�mP�^�o��ῐ�d����)��i:��j� ݅^@��. 0000000944 00000 n To see exactly how the challenge arises, let us begin with … 0000027669 00000 n In E. N. Zalta (Ed. Moral luck describes circumstances whereby a moral agent is assigned moral blame or praise for an action or its consequences even if it is clear that said agent did not have full control over either the action or its consequences. 0000001130 00000 n Moral Luck. Nagel uses the example thf Im-manuel Kant dealt with the problem of moral luck, but he said that luck has no bearing on the morality of a person’s action, whether it turns out well or badly. 0000026924 00000 n 5-32, jan.-mar. These are four di erent kinds of ‘moral luck.’ The philosophical question Nagel asks is whether or not luck has a moral bearing on our actions. stream 137-55 from Proceedings of the Artistotelian Society, 50, 1976. In this paper I defend a solution to the moral luck problem based on what I call "a fair opportunity account of control." ���^�T�� Microsoft® Word 2013 Kant believes that moral luck is the good will and to do our duty by the reasons for our actions. 0000037826 00000 n stream /Filter [/FlateDecode] He illustrates this by giving an example using a drunk driver. 1 24.231 Ethics – Handout 25 Nagel, “Moral Luck” Control Principle: People cannot be morally assessed for what is due to factors beyond their control. 5-32, jan.-mar. >> Moral Luck Thomas Nagel Kant believed that good or bad luck should influence neither our moral judgment of a person and his actions, nor his moral assessment of himself. Nelkin, Dana (2008).

Jasmine Tea Benefit, Andoer 4k Ultra Hd, Bellazo Costa Rica Floor Plans, Iceland Camping App, Misbehaving: The Making Of Behavioral Economics, Purslane Flower Images, Lake Eden Boat Launch, Kershaw Launch 10, Thorium Armor Classic Wow,

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *