Search results
People also ask
Did Thomas Nagel discuss moral luck?
How do Kant and Nagel approach moral luck?
What does Nagel say about morality?
What is moral luck?
Jan 26, 2004 · Indeed, immunity from luck has been thought by many to be part of the very essence of morality. And yet, as Williams (1976) and Thomas Nagel (1979) showed in their now classic pair of articles, it appears that our everyday judgments and practices commit us to the existence of moral luck.
24 MORAL LUCK. Thomas Nagel. Kant thought that luck should not come into ethics. Every action which can be assessed in moral terms must be freely performed: you should not be held morally responsible for anything outside your conscious control.
- 257KB
- 10
Nagel identifies four ways in which luck plays into our moral assessments: Resultant Luck: “luck in the way one’s actions and projects turn out.”. Circumstantial Luck: the luck involved in “the kind of problems and situations one faces”. Causal Luck: “luck in how one is determined by antecedent circumstances.”.
Four types of moral luck. Thomas Nagel (1979) identified four kinds of moral luck in his essay. The kind most relevant to the above example is "resultant moral luck". Resultant moral luck (consequential) Resultant moral luck concerns the consequences of actions and situations.
1 Categories of moral luck Thomas Nagel's (1979, p. 28) taxonomy of moral luck includes resultant, circumstantial, constitutive, and causal moral luck.3 Resultant moral luck occurs when an agent performs an action or omission with a consequence that is at least partially beyond her control and that consequence positively affects her praisewor-
Sep 13, 2023 · Thomas Nagel finds moral luck a paradox: though responsible for what I control, I am held responsible for what exceeds it. Stoicism, Kant, and Nagel offer three approaches to moral luck based on a common failure to grasp action. Stoics eliminate moral luck in affirming the mind’s uncompromised freedom alongside nature’s deterministic order.
Moral Luck Thomas Nagel Kant believed that good or bad luck should influence neither our moral judgment of a person and his actions, nor his moral assessment of himself. The good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of its willing, i.e., it is
