American Philosopher Thomas Nagel, has spent time examining a forthcoming with a theory about moral luck. His main attention consists of studying and evaluating philosophy of mind, ethics and political philosophy. Nagel identifies four ways in which luck centers a part in moral duty. He raises the bar with the question of whether luck can affect judgement of morality. I argue that Nagel's theory of Moral Luck is substantial and one that has all the basic groundings for Me to believe its precise. His idea was driver A and B were both drunk driving home, driver A passed the red light striking a child in the road killing the child while driver B made it home safe. In Nagel viewpoint, this kind of luck affects in the case of if an individual will
…show more content…
I am familiar with a lot of individuals who have committed crimes. Majority of them where raised up in low income settings, shattered homes and raised in bad circumstances where all they perceived was crime and most of them ended out to be criminals in society do to seeing nothing but crime being committed in the environment they were being brought up in, therefore they recognized nothing else but what they understood or was taught. their environment played a big part in how they developed and who they became. I also agree with Nagel claiming movements that are involuntary, are typically never blamable. If I was at gunpoint, and forced to rob the bank and threatened that if I don’t I will lose my life, I should not be at fault for my actions of wanting to save my life, or should I be at blame for robbing the bank because I was forced to do it, the act would be considered involuntary. The laws may object and say I was in the wrong, but being detained against my own will and having no other opportunities, or control over the circumstances, I should not be held accountable.
In conclusion, the problem of luck in human action has been a dominant theme in majority of philosophy cases. I argue that Nagel has a valid theory and I am in acceptance of his definition for constitutive moral luck. Overall, when evaluating the principles Moral Luck, it stems from a faulty understanding of the conditions of moral accountability. Some people don’t even believe in luck so it's up to one's discretion if they think Nagel's attempt to instruct us on moral luck is enough to make them believers or
I am familiar with a lot of individuals who have committed crimes. Majority of them where raised up in low income settings, shattered homes and raised in bad circumstances where all they perceived was crime and most of them ended out to be criminals in society do to seeing nothing but crime being committed in the environment they were being brought up in, therefore they recognized nothing else but what they understood or was taught. their environment played a big part in how they developed and who they became. I also agree with Nagel claiming movements that are involuntary, are typically never blamable. If I was at gunpoint, and forced to rob the bank and threatened that if I don’t I will lose my life, I should not be at fault for my actions of wanting to save my life, or should I be at blame for robbing the bank because I was forced to do it, the act would be considered involuntary. The laws may object and say I was in the wrong, but being detained against my own will and having no other opportunities, or control over the circumstances, I should not be held accountable.
In conclusion, the problem of luck in human action has been a dominant theme in majority of philosophy cases. I argue that Nagel has a valid theory and I am in acceptance of his definition for constitutive moral luck. Overall, when evaluating the principles Moral Luck, it stems from a faulty understanding of the conditions of moral accountability. Some people don’t even believe in luck so it's up to one's discretion if they think Nagel's attempt to instruct us on moral luck is enough to make them believers or