Ethical ideologies are inherent and play a vital role in our decision to make moral decisions and whether or not those decisions are right or wrong. Two major philosophers that proposed two theories of ethics that gave an understand of what is right or wrong are Kant and Nagel. Kant theorized that the rightness or wrongness of actions doesn’t depend on our consequences but on whether we fulfill our duty. Nagel proposed the idea of Moral Luck and said that Moral Luck occurs when we judge an agent or assign moral blame or praise for an action or it’s consequences even if it is clear that an agent had no control in the situation.
Through the theory of Moral Luck there are four types of non-moral luck that play a factor in the morality of an action …show more content…
If a duty is contrary to duty, in self interest, considers love then it is not in good will. A Kantian would accept the condition of control because Kant states that when deciding what action to make it be in accordance with the good will (moral worth, in accordance with duty). So, in above scenario where both agents drove home and agent 2 happened to hit and kill a kid (being out of their control) without intending to do so. Kantians would say that because both agents had good intentions and that they both were in accordance with the good will that they were acting in good will (in accordance with duty). Kant’s ethics is more concerned with the motivation (reasoning for doing it) of an agents actions and not the goodness of the consequences of those actions therefore making Kantian ethics a deontological ethical theory meaning its an ethical position that judged the morality of an actions based on duty, obligation, or rule. A Kantian ethicist would first consider what actions are “right” actions and proceed from there. In regards to Constitutive luck, Kant would say that constitutive luck doesn’t exist for rational agents because if people are rational then moral action and knowledge is available to everyone according to Grounding. (Everyone has the opportunity to be good). But, if the scenario above agent 2 still hit the kid since their action had good intent and in accordance with duty (because good intention=good will=accordance to duty) then what agent 2 did wasn’t morally wrong. Kant isn’t concerned with consequences Regardless of agent 2 hitting and killing a kid that jumped out in the middle of the street it is absurd for agent 2 to be more or less culpable for the action because it was out of their
Through the theory of Moral Luck there are four types of non-moral luck that play a factor in the morality of an action …show more content…
If a duty is contrary to duty, in self interest, considers love then it is not in good will. A Kantian would accept the condition of control because Kant states that when deciding what action to make it be in accordance with the good will (moral worth, in accordance with duty). So, in above scenario where both agents drove home and agent 2 happened to hit and kill a kid (being out of their control) without intending to do so. Kantians would say that because both agents had good intentions and that they both were in accordance with the good will that they were acting in good will (in accordance with duty). Kant’s ethics is more concerned with the motivation (reasoning for doing it) of an agents actions and not the goodness of the consequences of those actions therefore making Kantian ethics a deontological ethical theory meaning its an ethical position that judged the morality of an actions based on duty, obligation, or rule. A Kantian ethicist would first consider what actions are “right” actions and proceed from there. In regards to Constitutive luck, Kant would say that constitutive luck doesn’t exist for rational agents because if people are rational then moral action and knowledge is available to everyone according to Grounding. (Everyone has the opportunity to be good). But, if the scenario above agent 2 still hit the kid since their action had good intent and in accordance with duty (because good intention=good will=accordance to duty) then what agent 2 did wasn’t morally wrong. Kant isn’t concerned with consequences Regardless of agent 2 hitting and killing a kid that jumped out in the middle of the street it is absurd for agent 2 to be more or less culpable for the action because it was out of their