What is the capacity in which things that are not under your control can affect the amount of moral responsibility that you face? For this topic, there are generally three main views that claim to answer this question, and they are each rather simple; first, there are those that think that people are only blameworthy for things that are under their control. Second, there are those who think that people are blameworthy for things that are not under their control, and lastly, there are those that restrict the second view, such that they can compromise between both views. In this paper, I will discuss the first two views only, providing arguments for the second view as well as possible counterarguments from those that think the first view is correct.
…show more content…
Immanuel Kant can be associated with the view that “people are only blameworthy for things that are under their control,” (this statement will be referred to as the ‘condition of control’) and Thomas Nagel was one who disagreed with this view. Nagel expressed that when someone does something that depends on factors out of their control, yet we still continue to pass moral judgment on them, it can be considered “moral luck.” (Nagel, 804) This idea of moral luck comes up frequently on this topic of blameworthiness, and in the following paragraphs I will explain Nagel’s arguments against the condition of control in categories of the different types of moral luck. After each category of moral luck, I will suggest counterarguments from those who support the condition of control on the concepts Nagel …show more content…
that influenced their values out of his control (Nagel, 807). This may sound slightly strange, so I’ll provide another example: imagine child named Justin who, by forces out of his control, was born in an inner city in America, and was brought into a gang at an early age and absorbed their values—now the value he holds most dear is to protect his crew, no matter the cost. Nagel suggests that this value contributes to what Justin will act like, thus he is morally responsible for his
Immanuel Kant can be associated with the view that “people are only blameworthy for things that are under their control,” (this statement will be referred to as the ‘condition of control’) and Thomas Nagel was one who disagreed with this view. Nagel expressed that when someone does something that depends on factors out of their control, yet we still continue to pass moral judgment on them, it can be considered “moral luck.” (Nagel, 804) This idea of moral luck comes up frequently on this topic of blameworthiness, and in the following paragraphs I will explain Nagel’s arguments against the condition of control in categories of the different types of moral luck. After each category of moral luck, I will suggest counterarguments from those who support the condition of control on the concepts Nagel …show more content…
that influenced their values out of his control (Nagel, 807). This may sound slightly strange, so I’ll provide another example: imagine child named Justin who, by forces out of his control, was born in an inner city in America, and was brought into a gang at an early age and absorbed their values—now the value he holds most dear is to protect his crew, no matter the cost. Nagel suggests that this value contributes to what Justin will act like, thus he is morally responsible for his