Philosophers Nagel and Kant on Moral Luck

If we are morally responsible, how do we decide it? Initially, the concept of control principles was put into practical use until people noticed that they did not actually practice it, which led to the creation of moral luck. Two philosophers who opposed the concept of moral luck were Nagel and Kant. I think Kant has a good foundation for what he believes, but I do not think he has answers to the roles that luck plays in our decisions.

After the paper by Thomas Nagel and Bernard Williams, the literature on moral luck began to become serious. Although not under the heading "moral luck", the issue of moral luck has been discussed before articles by Nagel and Williams. Nagel's paper is written as Williams' comment, but their focus is quite different. Nevertheless, the same problem still exists at the core of the two papers. In fact, it is also a central issue of moral literature: the idea of ​​this moral difference is very broad. Various differences are considered. The most obvious is that the moral responsibility of a person may be different, but luck affects the moral defense of our behavior, which affects the moral status of people.

In his classical 'moral luck' (1979) paper, Thomas Nagel argues that moral luck reveals paradox in our concept of moral responsibility. The inconsistent paradox of Nagel can be summarized as follows. The central element of our concept of moral responsibility is the control condition (hereinafter called CC), which can be represented in the form of a schematic: the inevitable result of CC is that people You should not be responsible for something beyond the control of. Factors such as compulsion, unconscious movement and excuses ignorance

How does Nagel understand the idea that "people can bear moral responsibility only for what they do?" In other words, moral luck seems to indicate that his moral responsibility conflicts. According to Nagel's idea, it seems to be as follows. Actions can be evaluated as commendable or expressible only if they can go back to "responsible" or "active" self (hereinafter referred to as "AS"). .1 In fact, this is what CC will do to Nagel. Once the action is connected to your AS in the correct way, the agent can control the action. When action is issued from this self, it can be judged morally, as Nagel asserts, "e is judging him, not his existence or characteristic It is for judging that it is. , P. 36). Therefore, when evaluating behavior ethically, you need to make sure that the behavior is associated with the agent's AS in the correct way.