The Distance Between Morality and Luck

The distance between morality and luck is in the field of morality I tend to combine my intuition with Kant's morality and form a very strict interpretation of behavior with moral values. As a person who believes that the world is not dominated by determinism, I value moral appreciation very much. That is why I thought Nagel's moral article was very troublesome. Nagel explains the concept that if accurate we perfectly weaken our moral value and hurt our ability to apply moral value to decision making.

There are generally three ways to respond to ethical luck. (I) denying moral luck, (ii) rejecting or limiting the principle of control, (iii) accepting or denying the existence of a certain kind of moral luck. Since it is completely incoherent, at least the moral luck problem will not arise with regard to the type of moral concern. Some people who respond to moral luck take a method to solve various luck problems. But many people take a complex approach, that is to get another kind of luck in one way, another way to get another kind of luck, or simply silence another kind of luck While using it. Is it legal to adopt a hybrid approach? After all, if the principle of control is true, then there is no moral luck then, if it is false, then it seems that there can be any kind of moral luck.

Opportunities play an important role in moral judgment. Moral luck is a way of thinking about the relationship between luck and moral responsibility and I realize that no one really knows what the results of my intention produce. Specifically, "When moral good luck occurs when an agent can be properly regarded as an object of ethical judgment, the important aspect of evaluation depends on unmanageable factors." Morality An example of luck was postponed. Principles of control: "Morally evaluating depends only on factors that you control" Because our intention can be freely determined, our intention reveals our moral qualities can do. Still, even the best intent may lead to bad results.

In "moral luck", Thomas Nagel explains the motivation to deny the existence of moral luck. "Before reflection, people are not mistakes of their own, but can not be evaluated morally due to their unruly factors." 1 We will examine this principle by one person to multiple people It means that you can not rely on it. Control Factor, Control Principle As Nagel acknowledges, the principle of control is very reasonable. We do not believe how good people depend on factors beyond their control. But people are worried that everything depends on her uncontrollable elements. To see how this conclusion can be derived, we will see three other potential moral luck species, namely indirect, constitutive and causal moral luck.