Moral Luck

     Moral Luck is assigning moral judgment, blame or praise, to a person’s circumstance, even if said circumstances aren’t completely in the person’s control. An example of this in my own life would be something as simple as when I went to the movies with my Aunt, my cousin and my sister. After the movie was over we decided to exit out of a side door rather than walking back through the lobby. I later learned that at the same time that my movie ended a former friend of my, who my family hated, was waiting in the lobby for his movie to start. Although this example may seem nothing more than trivial, had I seen him that day at the theater, I would have never heard the end of it from the three of them. In many ways you could argue that many coincidences in life are an example of moral luck.

Kant believes that external conditions outside one’s control should not influence moral judgment, including character and blameworthiness. He wouldn’t give any credence to moral luck. According to Kant the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical, not the consequences of the actions. Therefore, if the man who ran the red light did not indented to kill the child than he shouldn’t be judged based on the vehicular homicide but instead the reason why he ran the red light. If he intended the run the red light to beat a crowd or because he was running late than he should be judged based on his selfish behavior. On the other hand if he ran the red late because his wife was in the back seat in labor and he wanted to get her to the hospital as soon as possible than the moral judgment would be altered. All in all Kant denies the existence of moral luck, therefore making it impossible for it to be a serious ethical issue. Kant places the entire moral status of our character on us as an individual. I too do not believe in the idea of moral luck  because I do not think you can hold one responsible for the working of fate, so I do not believe that it is a serious ethical issue.