Moral luck questions if external
conditions outside a person’s control can increase or decrease blame or praise.
EXAMPLE:
I was driving on the highway on the
way home from the beach. The speed limit
was 65, I was going about 70 mph.
Suddenly there was a splatter on my windshield and a swarm of bees came
flying through my sun roof. My instant
panic caused me to move left off the road and when I looked up I was about 10
yards from a head on collision with the beginning of a median. I immediately jerked the wheel to the right and
lost control of the car. After a 360
degree spin in the middle of the highway I ended up with my back end lifted up
on the median. This accident was
unlucky, and ultimately out of my control.
However, I could have been more unlucky.
Consider if this collision had not happened right before the beginning
of a median strip. I could have gone
completely left onto the other side of the road and collided with a motorcycle,
killing the driver. My intentions would
not have been to collide with and kill a motorcycle rider, still my reaction to
the bees was voluntary. In my original
case, where no one was killed I was not blamed for my reaction, or for the
accident at all. It was a freak accident. Yet, in my fictional case I would be forced
to assume culpability for my voluntary response to the bees that caused me to
kill another person; perhaps even receiving legal penalization. But can I be blamed justly? Is it just that I retain the title “killer”? The external circumstance of a swarm of bees
being in the middle of the highway seems to be overlooked by the consequence of
other circumstances such as my reaction, and the detail of my sunroof being
open. Looking deeper into my “voluntary”
actions, I did choose to move the wheel the way I did, but these choices were
not a result of calculated decisions. They were spontaneous and in wake of a
frantic response with good intentions.
I think
that moral luck is an ethical issue because one cannot be held completely
responsible for the uncontrolled, and unpredictable. I don’t think it would be fair to consider my
reaction to the bees immoral, considering that I had handled the accident to my
best ability and would never have the intention of ending another life. To be praised for my bravery in the real
case, but be blamed and scrutinized in my alternative case is unethical because
it is the same person with the same intentions and moral values. One cannot be more moral than the other
simply because of outcome.
I like your argument and the specific examples you gave. I would disagree that someone who accidentally hit a motorcyclist would be punished. I think if someone could prove to a court that that was not there intentions (prove to the court that there was swarm of bees) they wouldn't be punished for it. I agree that because it is so hard to tell what peoples intentions are some people might get punished for things that they did not do.
ReplyDeleteThere was no blemish in this paper. Very concise and excellent examples to illustrate your point of view. I doubt anyone can be deemed culpable for any deaths resulting from such an accident. But I'm glad no one was hurt!
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree that moral luck is an ethical issue in this case or any like this for the simple fact that the details of this specific event as in many others are weighed in relation to your actions and intent. If the fact that you were speeding was one that could be proven then you would be held accountable on the grounds that the outcome would not have been the same regardless of luck. As well as the fact that you had no intention of causing any harm nor wrongdoing will also be taking into consideration designating this circumstance as an accident. Luck does not play a role because every circumstance can be judged by the actions of the person and their intent as they relate to the actions committed.
ReplyDelete