PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: The Problem of Moral Luck

Victor Kumar (Michigan) introduces the problem of moral luck and surveys potential solutions. We see how the problem arises out of a clash between intuitive reactions to cases and an abstract principle of moral responsibility.

Help us caption & translate this video!

Help us caption & translate this video!

[soslothful]

I'm reminded of this quote, "A moment of carelessness, a lifetime of regret. A lifetime of carelessness, a moment of regret."

[martinbennett]

There are more difficult examples: a couple are driving along a country road, as they approach a village the passenger reminds the driver of the lower speed limit, the driver slows. Suddenly a child rushes into the road and under the car, there was no time to stop. The child dies. Although not their fault, the driver and particularly the passenger feel dreadfully guilty: had the passenger not urged the driver to slow down the car would have passed by before the child rushed into the road.

[cliffordhodge]

Although not philosophically enlightening on most things, our legal system is surprisingly good at dealing with such issues, allowing people to simply apply the common sense of intuitions gained from life experience to determine the degree to which negligence is of a common "normal" sort (There but for the grace of God...) or a sort produced by some marked lack of concern over the well-being of others.  Also, degree of control may not be such an important factor: we despise a sadistic serial killer and feel no qualms about removing him from our midst by locking him up, even if we are convinced he acted as the result of a repugnant and unchosen nature.  This seems to have more to do with revulsion than an analysis of ability to choose.

[diablominero]

If the two people taking care of children did exactly the same thing, then their actions are equally morally evil. However, most situations include details too small to notice or explain which still affect the outcome. Maybe the "lucky" driver prefers safer roads, and being negligent with seatbelts when you plan to drive on safe roads is less bad than if you plan to drive dangerous ones. We as humans subconsciously assume that every situation has numerous unspecified details, and try to infer what the details were by examining differences in result. You cannot possibly convince someone's intuition-generating system to believe you that the two acts of negligence were identical. Hence, our intuitive feeling that the "unlucky" driver deserves to be held responsible for the child's death, while the "lucky" one deserves little punishment.

[thebestanswers]

For the control to be true, you must also assume that both people looking after children neglect to buckle their car seat equally. You must also assume they are equally as careful in their driving. Also they must be driving on similar type roads (traffic wise). The more traffic the more you should be watching the road. Your assumption assumes a lot of the drivers and the situations. There are many more variables in this argument. I would assume a person who is more reckless has higher odds of hurting the child than one who is careful. And the more careful you are the less you feel responsible. And the more careful people around you think you are. The less they will usually want to blame you.

[sgnMark]

Not sure if this has been said, but responsibility in this case was dismissed due to negligence and not intent. If both caregivers made a mistake in awareness that led to negligence yet they both were driving within the rules of the road, then we have to evaluate the other driver in the crash. Generally, it is only one who is the ultimate cause of a crash, and if it was the other, than we cannot blame the cause on the negligence of the children's driver. Why? Because prevention of an outcome leads to an ad infinitum scenario where to avoid an external source of conflict you ultimately have to backtrack all causes into practical stagnation. Whereas the other driver's negligence was the actual cause of the crash. There is a scenario where both were following the rules and the crash still happened. Imagine what that would be. My guess is you can only imagine another outside source (i.e. driver not following the rules of driving) for this to be possible. What this does highlight is that there must be a meta reasoning behind morality that is contingent on cause and effect rather than cause and consequence.

[GourmetBurrito]

There's a big difference between retribution and justice. Just because one family (or even the government) claims that there ought to be a punishment, it does not mean that the actor is morally blameworthy. Moral value shouldn't be based on pivotal moments but should consider the character of the person. That still leads to problems of circumstantial and constitutive moral luck as people in lower socio-economic status would not have had the same potential to develop (especially cognitively) and perhaps they should be treated as children without the ability to reason. But once that's accounted for (and to set an absolute standard might be arbitrary), regardless of social class if an actor comes to conclusion that wrongdoing is worth it that is the sort of person that "deserves" punishment

[kaigraham]

morals have to be flexible or not as ridged because life has a habit of throwing curve balls that throw your morals in to question.
1 knowingly killing a man is wrong
2 circumstances can change the statement (1)

the train is travelling down the track and you have control of the junction
track a has a group of people on the track that would not be able to move out of the way in time
track b has 1 man on the track that would not be able to move out of the way in time
a or b
the answer is b
but if you did not have flexible morals (statement 1) you would have broken your own morals

[ahmidahmid]

what that responsibility lead to is all that matters so chance play a big role in this judgment but when you are playing with the dice of chances it's your turn and you held the results might be out of the player power to control but it's his choice to carry the child

[gamer-lysolman]

All different types of moral luck, to be, are just facts of the world - the outcomes of actions themselves, the constituent of moral agents (body, mind, genetics), and the circumstances under which moral agents act (the environment, the situation, the context). Moral luck can be taken out of the equation in a sense.

[SmileyEmoji]

Either your actions have a cause, in which case they are not free, or else they have no cause, in which case they are not willed

[The]

Surely we are all blameworthy. Maybe we are not guilty of neglecting to fasten the seat belt of the child, but we are probably guilty of other forms of neglect. Other actions that could have ended tragically.

Even with the highest vigilance and best of intentions we are bound to slip up. None of us are immune to the human condition. If other people are making these kind of decisions then this is cause to be more introspective and look at our own flaws.

I think of negligent parents and think, "maybe I am just as capable". It is cause for introspection.

[fawzibriedj]

Good video ! I don't agree with the argument though.
While I agree that the person that caused death will be more blamed than the person who didn't, it doesn't mean that this person is considered "bad" compared to the other.
We can blame a person who broke a glass without thinking that this person is bad. Blame is linked to responsibility and here we are talking about morality.

[HoDx]

disagree with constitutive moral luck.

[my_dear_friend_]

Ditch the idea that humans have free will and many of these moral dilemmas (and the weighing of intentions) disappear.

[edens]

Hi is it possible to provide more details so that i can refer to this video in my essay? very useful thankyou

[richardtimbreza]

MANIPULATE AND CONTROL AND COMMAND TO MANIPULATE MATTER, CHANCES, LUCK, VIBES, PROBABILITIES, PROBABILITIES THEORIES, PROBABILITIES PHILOSOPHY

[TheGodholdingagun]

People aren't in control of being cruel? Also, disregarding consequences of an action when comparing it to another action is dumb. If A person shot a bullet in the same manner and intent as person B but person A struck 1 person while person B struck and killed 5 people, would mean that person B affected 5 more lives than person A for committing the same act. It's not inconsistent to punish according to consequences as intent and action do not make up the whole of the crime and are much harder to discern. This kind of philosophy is a joke.

[spellboundty]

Both drivers are equally as guilty as each other. If both did everything exactly the same as each other then both contributed equally in the outcome but in one situation an outside influence is the difference so another drivers actions. If you are the second driver who noticed that you didn't fasten the child in correctly after reaching the destination he/she should feel just as much remorse because they should realise what they had done wether it resulted in the child being hurt or not.

Now, if you never fasten the child in and neither did their parents and neither does anybody for that matter and the kid grows up and lives a full life then it doesn't seem morally reprehensible at all or at least much less so. But that would then mean other factors would have had to change significantly enough that seatbelts are rendered unnecessary by means of reduced driving mortality rates. Maybe from severely dropping universal speed limits or extreme adherence to driving safety standards.

Uh oh...relativity

[sixsix]

I think you should feel just as the same