John Nagel 's Argument On Moral Luck Essay

1409 Words Jun 4th, 2016 null Page
In response to the above critique, this section will explore how Nagel might defend his argument. It does not suffice to examine moral luck in hypothetical situations. Moral luck is only applicable under real circumstances and to give it a suppositious critique is degrading to Nagel’s original argument. It is also important to clarify the term “luck,” and what it means when something is affected by luck. Lastly, if we accept the critique then it is crucial we consider how to apply judgment without involving factors of luck.
Regarding circumstantial luck, even if we weigh what someone would have done in our moral assessments, we still must account for the actual circumstance. Context is required to form moral judgments; otherwise they are only ever hypothetical. And context can only be derived from an actual circumstance, not one made up of what could have been. That being said, even if someone might have acted differently under different circumstances, we must judge them based off of how they acted in the circumstance that actually occurred, a circumstance that happened by luck.
We also must be careful when defining luck as something separate from control. When critiquing the concept of moral luck, we often take “luck” to mean something similar to “spontaneous” or “by accident.” Taken this way, we can easily refute moral luck because we are unwilling to accept that everything we do and everything we are is the result of spontaneity. However, it seems that Nagel’s usage of…

Related Documents