Moral Luck

This paper develops structural loss-minimization ethics, a unified moral framework built from a single primitive: loss. The framework provides: (1) a first-order theory of right action (right action minimizes aggregate loss among viable options), (2) a theory of moral character (good character is a robust policy of loss-minimization across situations), (3) a theory of moral appraisal (attribution is inference about character from observed behavior under discriminating conditions), and (4) a deflationary account of moral worth as a dispositional property (policy robustness) (...) whose social function is to support coordination under uncertainty. The framework dissolves traditional puzzles about the relationship between motives and outcomes, explains why moral luck is troubling, grounds the importance of counterfactuals, and unifies questions that the philosophical literature has treated as separate research programs. Unlike classical utilitarianism, the framework operates on loss rather than utility, reads loss off situational structure rather than calculating hedonic sums, and reframes several standard objections by restricting evaluation to viable continuations of agency and by using lexicographic severity aggregation. The resulting view is best understood as a structurally constrained consequentialism with a policy-inference account of moral worth. (shrink)

My project examines the pedagogical approach of the Stoic Epictetus by focusing on seven vital lessons he imparts. This study will deepen our understanding of his vocation as a Stoic educator striving to free his students from the fears and foolishness that hold happiness hostage. These lessons are (1) how freedom, integrity, self-respect, and happiness interrelate; (2) real versus fake tragedy and real versus fake heroism; (3) the instructive roles that various animals play in Stoic education; (4) athleticism, sport, and (...) game-playing as analogies for striving to live virtuously; (5) place, time, and progress in the journey to self-realization; (6) how to live with death and exit life fearlessly; (7) how teaching wisdom is one of several ways the Stoic sage loves others. (shrink)

La falibilidad es una condición ubicua de nuestras empresas, la cual emana del hecho de que, comúnmente, las cosas que más nos interesan, como el descubrir la verdad, referirnos a cosas que de hecho existen, evitar dañar a los otros, etc., escapan nuestro alcance y, sin embargo, no dejamos de hacer grandes esfuerzos para conseguirlas. Es posible que hagamos todo lo que está en nuestras manos para actuar de manera cuidadosa y responsable y aun así nuestros actos tengan consecuencias negativas; (...) e igualmente es posible que nuestros actos tengan consecuencias positivas sin que podamos cobrar crédito por ellas como un logro. En este volumen, el autor se propone no solo explicar qué caracteriza a los casos de buena y mala suerte, sino también por qué valoramos más un logro que podemos atribuir al esfuerzo propio que el obtener lo que deseamos de manera accidental. (shrink)

In this paper, we give a new argument for the existence of moral luck. The argument is based on a manipulation case in which two agents both lack second-order control over their actions, but one of them has first-order control. Our argument is, we argue, in several respects stronger than standard arguments for moral luck. Five possible objections to the argument are considered, and its general significance for the debate on moral luck is briefly discussed.

Many philosophers who deny moral luck in consequences also affirm that people can be morally responsible for consequences. But this conjunction of views faces a puzzle: because consequences are almost always shaped by luck, how can people be morally responsible for lucky consequences? The solution to which these philosophers appeal is to distinguish between degree and scope of moral responsibility. Although lucky consequences cannot affect how much praise or blame people deserve, people can nevertheless be morally responsible for the consequences. (...) We raise a new problem for this solution. We argue that if a person blames the wrongdoer to the full extent deserved for their action, they cannot justly blame the wrongdoer for the consequence. But that result is functionally equivalent to the view that people are not morally responsible for consequences. In both cases, blame for consequences is inapt. But this counterintuitive result is not implied by the position that resultant moral luck exists, which is a comparative point in the latter view’s favor. (shrink)

Resultant moral luck is typically considered to be the most problematic type of moral luck. Arguably the most popular response to the problem of resultant moral luck is the idea that resultant luck affects the scope but not the degree of responsibility. Call this the ‘Degree Scope Response’ (DSR). Philosophers also use DSR in responding to other types of moral luck and in contexts outside moral luck. In this paper, I argue that DSR fails. Then I suggest that we should (...) hold that resultant luck affects neither the degree nor the scope of responsibility. Put differently, consequences are metaphysically irrelevant to responsibility. Further, I discuss various advantages of this view and show its various implications on questions about free will, theories of causation, and responsibility in contexts outside moral luck. I also defend this view against the worry that it is too revisionary. (shrink)

Can luck even partially determine how much praise and blame a person deserves? In a monograph and subsequent articles, I have argued that the answer is ‘yes’ for certain kinds of luck, and so I have argued that several types of moral luck exist. In this paper, I defend my view against the novel challenge that expected desert levels give everyone exactly equal moral opportunities, and so luck in circumstance and constitution cannot provide some people with better or worse moral (...) opportunities than others. I argue, however, that the Equal Moral Opportunity View is subject to counterintuitive implications (for example, it rules out supererogatory actions in circumstances with no blameworthy options) and cannot realize its ambition to immunize morality from unfairness. These costs form part of my argument that the Moral Luck View is more plausible. (shrink)

The received view is that Kant denies all moral luck. But I show how Kant affirms constitutive moral luck in passages concerning radical evil from Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. First, I explicate Kant’s claims about radical evil. It is a morally evil disposition that all human beings have necessarily, at least for the first part of their lives, and for which they are blameworthy. Second, since these properties about radical evil appear to contradict Kant’s even more famous (...) claims about imputation, ‘ought implies can’, and free will, I unpack Henry Allison’s proof of radical evil and show how it is consistent with interpretations of Kant’s broader views about morality. Third, I define and illustrate the category of constitutive moral luck and argue that Kant embraces the existence of constitutive moral luck given Allison-style interpretations of radical evil. This provides a reason for philosophers to reject the received view, and it creates an occasion for Kantians and Kant scholars to check their reasons if they deny moral luck. (shrink)

The modal theory of luck, according to one influential version of it, holds that an event is lucky if and only if it actually obtains but fails to obtain in some close possible worlds, holding fixed certain initial conditions for the event. There have been some notable critiques of the theory. But they are not fully satisfactory, for they succumb to two typical and compelling strategies of defending the modal theory. By invoking a special fair lottery case, adapted from the (...) well-known Frankfurt cases on free will, this article presents a novel attack on the modal theory. As to be shown, there are cases where someone wins a fair lottery as a matter of good luck, yet there are no close possible worlds where he fails to win it. I also argue that the two typical and compelling strategies of defending the modal theory do not meet our challenge. (shrink)

Explaining the notion of legal luck and exploring its justification. Focusing on how legal luck relates to moral luck, legal causation and negligence, and to civil and criminal liability.

A novel theory of comparative risk is developed and defended. Extant theories are criticized for failing the tests of extensional and formal adequacy. A unified diagnosis is proposed: extant theories consider risk to be a univariable function, but risk is a multivariate function. According to the theory proposed, which we call the unified theory of risk, the riskiness of a proposition is a function of both the proportion and the modal closeness of the possible worlds at which the proposition holds. (...) It is argued the theory passes the tests of extensional and formal adequacy. (shrink)

The problem of moral luck arises due to a particular tension in our thought. On the one hand, we seem readily inclined to endorse the principle that moral responsibility, that is, one’s praiseworthiness or blameworthiness, cannot be affected by luck, that is, by factors over which one lacks control. But, when we examine our actual practices, we find that our moral judgments are highly sensitive to luck. This resulting tension between principle and practice is the problem of moral luck, and (...) an attempt to solve this problem is an attempt to resolve this tension. The article first explains the traditional characterization of the problem and reviews three general strategies in responding to it. It is then argued that we should characterize the problem in a slightly broader way. This refocusing turns out to have significant methodological implications. (shrink)

According to self-expression views of responsibility, we’re responsible for something insofar as it expresses who we are as persons. We think this general view is correct. But existing versions of it face a serious problem. They focus entirely on our responsibility for actions or mental states. Yet we take it that we can also be responsible for things out in the world—the fact that someone dies or survives, for example. Existing self-expression theories cannot account for this. So they cannot explain (...) the full range of things for which we’re responsible. To solve this problem, we propose the manifestation account of responsibility. On this account, you’re responsible for something to the extent that it manifests you as a person. This view explains our responsibility for actions and mental states as well as external things. It can be defended against the most serious objections. And as an extra payoff, it also explains the gradability of responsibility. So, we argue, the manifestation account of responsibility is worth taking seriously indeed. (shrink)

Two assassins shoot at their respective targets—one hits, one misses. Two drivers text while driving—one hits a pedestrian, the other does not. Are the agents who cause harm more blameworthy than their counterparts? Philosophers often claim we must treat these cases symmetrically: outcome luck either matters in both cases or in neither. I challenge this assumption by defending an asymmetrical view. While outcome luck makes a difference in the drivers’ case, it cannot reduce the missing assassin’s blameworthiness. By texting while (...) driving, both drivers incurred the moral risk of ending up more blameworthy if they harmed someone. The fortunate driver deserves less blame than her counterpart because she neither intended nor caused harm. This reasoning does not extend to the missing assassin, who is not lucky in the everyday sense; she missed contrary to her intention. I propose that luck’s mitigating influence is strongest in negligence cases but diminishes as the agent’s quality of will worsens, moving along the spectrum from negligence through recklessness to direct intent. (shrink)

I will present a novel argument that there can be epistemically vicious knowledge. In the kind of case that interests me, the subject knows not despite but rather because of her vice. It is generally agreed that some kinds of epistemic luck don’t undermine knowledge. For instance, being lucky not to have misleading evidence doesn’t undermine knowledge. I will argue that this doesn’t change when the avoidance of misleading evidence depends on the subject’s vice. It does not prevent her belief (...) from being both safe and sensitive, nor does it have any bearing on whether her justifying reasons are ultimately defeated. To illustrate my point, I will draw a parallel with a certain way of thinking about resultant moral luck. I will then go on to consider the ramifications for virtue-theoretic analyses of knowledge and the doctrine of normative defeat. (shrink)

This paper examines Susan Wolf's account of "the Reason View" of moral responsibility as articulated and defended in 'Freedom Within Reason' (OUP 1990). The discussion turns on two questions about the Reason View: -/- (1) Does the Reason View aim to satisfy what Bernard Williams describes as “morality” and its (“peculiar”) conception of responsibility and blame? -/- (2) If it does, how successful is the Reason View judged in these terms? -/- It is argued that if the Reason View aims (...) to satisfy “morality” in respect of its understanding of deserved blame -- as it seems to -- then it fails for reasons similar to those that apply to R. J. Wallace’s 'rational self-control' model. On the other hand, if Wolf’s Reason View does not aim to satisfy “morality” in this respect then it might well rest satisfied with the more limited conditions of Wallace’s Reflective Self-Control model, which in contrast with the Reason View, does not appeal to the (problematic) apparatus of asymmetry and PAP. The paper concludes by drawing a contrast between the Reason View and a more "realistic" conception of responsibility, as suggested by the critique of “the morality system” and the more radical "recasting" of our ethical concepts that it proposes. -/- . (shrink)

The main thesis of this paper is that there are two distinct and divergent compatibilist projects. The difference between them turns on a difference between two conceptions of moral responsibility and the way that they are related to the (traditional) free will problem. The idealist compatibilist aims to vindicate the ideal conception of moral responsibility and its assumptions and aspirations. A crucial element of this is that responsible agents are untainted by any significant forms of fate and luck, whereby the (...) agent is held responsible for qualities or conduct that she lacks full (absolute) control over. The realist compatibilist agrees with the sceptic that the ideal conception cannot be satisfied. The true sceptic insists that the ideal conception is the only credible or acceptable (i.e. “true”) conception, and so concludes that moral responsibility is impossible without qualification. The realist compatibilist rejects the true sceptical conclusion. According to realist compatibilism what is required is an accurate and complete description of the abilities and distinctions required for the effective operation of human ethical life. This standard of responsibility can be met even though the ideal conception is not satisfied. It follows from this that the particular form of optimism that idealists aspire to cannot be achieved or realized – morally responsible agents are plainly subject to significant forms of fate and moral luck. To this extent human ethical life, as constructed around the realist conception of moral responsibility, is not “absolutely” just or fair. That may well be a genuine source of “disenchantment” about our human ethical predicament. However, for the realist compatibilist this is not a problem to be solved but a predicament to be acknowledged. If we want to make sense of moral responsibility we need to look beyond the free will problem and discard the idealist conception of moral responsibility that has generated it. (shrink)

[In Press - forthcoming 2026. ] The primary aim of this book is to provide the general reader with an overview of the main issues that arise relating to our understanding of matters of moral responsibility. Much of this study is constructed around a fundamental tension that we all must deal with in relation to this subject. From one point of view, moral responsibility permeates every aspect of human life - both in its public and its private dimensions. Beginning in (...) childhood, and continuing throughout our lives, we are immersed in a web of evaluations, attitudes, and practices that are evidence of our systematic and deep commitment to moral responsibility. From another point of view, when we critically reflect on our ordinary experience of moral responsibility, we encounter puzzles and perplexities concerning what moral responsibility actually involves, and what sort of justification it requires or that it can be provided with. This process is liable to push us into scepticism about its very possibility or intelligibility. We may be driven to worry about the death of moral responsibility as others have worried about the death of God. It is this philosophical dimension of moral responsibility that this study is especially concerned with. Although this slim volume cannot claim to offer any formulas or solutions for dealing with the various particular practical problems that readers may have, the discussion provided aims to discredit – or at least cast doubt on - some powerful illusions that continue to influence and distort much of our current thinking about this subject. This includes a misplaced scepticism about moral responsibility, which enjoys some currency in contemporary philosophy and some other related fields. When we discard these illusions, and remove the confusions that they generate, we will, hopefully, be better placed to deal with the practical problems and difficulties that we face in a more truthful, effective, and humane way. The picture of moral responsibility presented here is described as “responsibility realism”. It suggests that our human ethical predicament is one that falls in the territory that lies between a consoling optimism and a bleak pessimism. (shrink)

Denying blameworthiness after apologizing seems fishy. “Sorry, not sorry” is what this might sound like. Yet, this fact conflicts with another fact about apologies, namely, that we routinely apologize for blameless conduct. There is, thus, a puzzle regarding what it is that an apology must admit about one’s involvement in the apologized-for conduct for the apology to be fitting. This chapter solves this puzzle by arguing that in cases where our agency is blamelessly implicated in harmful conduct, apologies are fitting (...) only if they involve an admission of responsibility—where the responsibility in question does not entail blameworthiness. (shrink)

It is conventional wisdom that appreciating the role of luck in our moral lives should make us more sparing with blame. But views of moral responsibility that allow luck to augment a person’s blameworthiness are in tension with this wisdom. I resolve this tension: our common moral luck partially generates a duty to forgo retributively blaming the blameworthy person at least sometimes. So, although luck can amplify the blame that a person deserves, luck also partially generates a duty not to (...) give the blameworthy person the retributive blame that he deserves at least sometimes. (shrink)

Who is responsible for a harm caused by AI, or a machine or system that relies on artificial intelligence? Given that current AI is neither conscious nor sentient, it’s unclear that AI itself is responsible for it. But given that AI acts independently of its developer or user, it’s also unclear that the developer or user is responsible for the harm. This gives rise to the so-called responsibility gap: cases where AI causes a harm, but no one is responsible for (...) it. Two central questions in the literature are whether responsibility gaps exist, and if yes, whether they’re morally problematic in a way that counts against developing or using AI. While some authors argue that responsibility gaps exist, and they’re morally problematic, some argue that they don’t exist. In this paper, I defend a novel position. First, I argue that current AI doesn’t generate a new kind of concern about responsibility that the older technologies don’t. Then, I argue that responsibility gaps exist but they’re unproblematic. (NOTE: Email me for a copy.). (shrink)

Whims are philosophically interesting and play a role in debates concerning free will, luck, and responsibility. However, philosophers have had little to say about what whims are. One exception is Lackey (Australas J Philos 86(2): 255–267, 2008) who argues that some whimsical events are counterexamples to the modal account of luck and that whimsical decisions can be modally robust. I argue that these claims are false. I also give an account of whims. In my view, whimsical decisions are definable in (...) terms of two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: spontaneity and modal fragility. Whimsical outcomes are the successful results of whimsical decisions. (shrink)

According to the modal account of luck it is a matter of luck that p if p is true at the actual world, but false in a wide‐range of nearby worlds. According to the modal account of risk, it is risky that p if p is true at some close world. I argue that the modal accounts of luck and risk do not mesh well together. The views entail that p can be both maximally risky and maximally lucky, but there (...) is nothing which is both maximally lucky and maximally risky. I offer a novel theory of risk that fits together with the modal account of luck and demonstrate that it is both extensionally and formally superior to extant proposals. (shrink)

Theories of graded causation attract growing attention in the philosophical debate on causation. An important field of application is the controversial relationship between causation and moral responsibility. However, it is still unclear how exactly the notion of graded causation should be understood in the context of moral responsibility. One question is whether we should endorse a proportionality principle, according to which the degree of an agent’s moral responsibility is proportionate to their degree of causal contribution. A second question is whether (...) a theory of graded causation should measure closeness to necessity or closeness to sufficiency. In this paper, we argue that we should indeed endorse a proportionality principle and that this principle supports a notion of graded causation relying on closeness to sufficiency rather than closeness to necessity. Furthermore, we argue that this insight helps to provide a plausible analysis of the so-called ‘Moral Difference Puzzle’ recently described by Bernstein. (shrink)

According to Rescher, luck is chancy, but constitution is not, and so constitutive luck is a contradiction in terms. In this paper, I look at two recent attempts to controvert this argument. According to the first, constitution is not chancy, but neither is moral luck, because moral luck is not a species of luck. According to the second, moral luck is chancy, but constitution is too, because the comparative class is not the agent herself but rather the population at large. (...) I argue that neither of these attempts is successful. I begin by explaining the importance of constitutive luck and the context in which Rescher’s claim arises. (shrink)

In recent debates about the nature of luck, many philosophers defend a modal condition, according to which an event E is lucky for S only if E is modally fragile. However, there are two competing accounts of how this condition should be filled out: (1) proportion accounts focus on whether E fails to occur in a suitable proportion of possible worlds, whereas (2) proximity accounts focus on whether E fails to occur in a suitably proximate possible world. In this article (...) I argue against proportion accounts and in favor of proximity accounts. Section 1 consists of a brief literature review. Section 2 explains how the two accounts differ: it is a formal feature of proximity accounts, but not of proportion accounts, that they are symmetric. In section 3, I set out my argument for proximity accounts. I begin by noting that, despite the formal difference explicated in section 2, proximity and proportion accounts are similarly situated in regard to many prominent issues in the luck literature: both can overcome Latus’ famous sunrise objection, and both fall prey to Lackey’s famous whim objection. Next, I argue that Hill’s recent and influential reductio of proportion accounts does not withstand critical scrutiny. I maintain, instead, that the reason to reject proportion accounts, and the reason to affirm proximity accounts, is that, because proportion accounts, unlike proximity accounts, are asymmetric, they are scuttled by the Russian roulette problem (surviving Russian roulette is a paradigmatic instance of luck even though the chances of survival are higher than not). In section 4, I turn to objections to proximity accounts. I confront an objection from Coffman, an objection from Hill, and an objection inspired from McKinnon. I maintain that proximity accounts can overcome all of these objections. (shrink)

According to a prominent family of theories of blameworthiness, quality of will theories, a person is blameworthy for an action if and only if, and to the degree that, her will manifested in that action is bad. A puzzle for such theories is that (the degree of) blameworthiness appears to be affected by several factors beyond how bad the manifested will is. Among such factors are certain types of incompetence of the agent, the outcome of the action, the developmental history (...) of the agent (e.g., an unfortunate upbringing), and the time between action and blame. I defend a novel account of the nature of blame by appeal to its unique capacity to explain away these puzzling intuitions in a unified way. I argue that the account, in addition to being independently plausible, allows us to view those intuitions as products of a systematic yet understandable confusion between the issue of blameworthiness and some other separate issue. (shrink)

I have often blamed others for their repugnant, unethical, or irrational beliefs. However, considering how irrelevant influences affect beliefs makes it seem as though no one controls which beliefs they hold. In the burgeoning literature on epistemic blame, epistemologists have widely assumed that beliefs can be an appropriate target-class of epistemic blame: that we are right to blame others for their beliefs. In response to this consensus, I raise a concern about resultant luck from the moral responsibility literature and consider (...) the ‘rationalist’ response to this problem: that any appropriate target of blame must be immune to resultant luck. I import both the concept of resultant luck and the rationalist reply into the epistemic domain, arguing that all beliefs are inappropriate targets of epistemic blame because they are subject to epistemic resultant luck. But I do not directly advocate for an eliminativist conclusion; instead, I suggest that we may still aptly target blame at the quality of one’s inquiry: the viciousness demonstrated in an investigation, regardless of how one’s beliefs (un)luckily turn out. Thus, one can be aptly blamed for a true belief if arrived at in a vicious manner and praised for a false belief if arrived at virtuously. (shrink)

Bernard Williams identifies Hume as “in some ways an archetypal reconciler” who, nevertheless, displays “a striking resistance to some of the central tenets of what [Williams calls] ‘morality’”. This assessment, it is argued, is generally correct. There are, however, some significant points of difference in their views concerning moral responsibility. This includes Williams’s view that a naturalistic project of the kind that Hume pursues is of limited value when it comes to making sense of “morality’s” illusions about responsibility and blame. (...) It is, Williams maintains, only when we consider moral responsibility in genealogical terms, which gives attention to the importance of culture and history, that we can find a way of exposing the various prejudices and illusions of “the morality system”. Nevertheless, despite these differences, what Hume and Williams share is a fundamental commitment to provide a more “truthful” and “realistic” understanding of moral responsibility and our human ethical predicament. (shrink)

It is widely held that whether a person is morally responsible for an outcome partly depends on whether certain causal relations obtain between that person and the outcome. This paper argues that, regardless of whether the preceding claim about moral responsibility is true, moral blameworthiness is independent of such causal considerations. This conclusion is motivated by considering cases from Carolina Sartorio and Sara Bernstein. The causal structures of these cases are complex. Sartorio and Bernstein believe that reaching conclusions about moral (...) responsibility and blameworthiness requires wading through this complexity. But it is argued here that getting clear on these causal structures does not help us assess blameworthiness (regardless of the relevance of such considerations for drawing conclusions about moral responsibility). Moral blameworthiness simply does not turn on the considerations relevant to figuring out whether an agent causally contributed to an outcome. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue for a fundamentally different kind of moral luck, Patient Moral Luck (PML). Unlike traditional moral luck, PML concerns the amount of moral consideration that different moral patients — that is, creatures (including human beings) with moral status — will be owed, independent of factors in their control. PML, I argue, entails that morality itself appears to sanction and even obligate actions which, along predictable patterns, involve repeatedly failing to equally consider certain moral patients - and (...) repeatedly the same people - over sustained periods of time, through no fault of their own. And often these people will be members of groups who are already worse off through no fault of their own, thus exacerbating unjust inequalities. I defend the existence and normative puzzle of PML by introducing the notion of “moral force” - roughly, the amount of considerative weight a given moral patient is owed by some deliberating agent or group of agents. I then argue that this will vary widely between different moral patients through no fault or credit of their own. This, I claim, is inconsistent with the intuition that supports Equal Consideration principles in moral theory. I conclude by considering how we can minimize or mitigate PML without a radically revisionary normative theory. (shrink)

This paper interrogates the concept of luck in cancer diagnosis. I argue that while it might have some utility for individuals, at the clinical and research level, the concept impedes important prevention efforts and misdirects sources of blame in a cancer diagnosis. Such use, in fact, has the possibility of harming already vulnerable efforts at ameliorating social determinants of health and should therefore be eliminated from research and clinical contexts.

There is a large and growing body of empirical work on people’s intuitions about distributive justice. In this paper, we investigate how well luck egalitarianism and desertism—the two normative approaches that appear to cohere well with people’s intuitions—are supported by more fine-grained findings in the empirical literature. The time is ripe for a study of this sort, as the positive literature on justice has blossomed over the last three decades. The results of our investigation are surprising. In three different contexts (...) (good option luck, good brute luck, and bad brute luck) in which the demands of luck egalitarianism and those of a mainstream desert-based view come apart, the latter carries the day. One ramification of these findings is that people’s intuitions about justice are moralized; that is, they appeal to particular conceptions of the good. Luck egalitarians must decide whether to embrace these moralized intuitions by adopting desertism—or to resist them. (shrink)

Character ethics needs a way to account for the role of constitutive moral luck. The character ethics tradition holds agents responsible for acquiring traits that constitute a good moral character; but the circumstances of character formation are not fully in our control. Thus, an agent’s character—and moral status—are at least partly matters of luck. The proposed approach draws from recent work in character ethics to re-think moral agency as inescapably situated in a luck-laden context. A view of agency as situated (...) accounts for luck by attributing moral significance to contingencies that shape character, including hardships and forces outside a person’s control. Assessing an agent’s situatedness can preserve responsibility by emphasizing responses to luck, thereby highlighting areas of choice overlooked in normative ethical theory. The chapter concludes that constitutive moral luck is not a problem for, but an aspect of, situated agency. (shrink)

The most popular position in the moral luck debate is to reject resultant moral luck while accepting the possibility of other types of moral luck. But it is unclear whether this position is stable. Some argue that luck is luck and if it is relevant for moral responsibility anywhere, it is relevant everywhere, and vice versa. Some argue that given the similarities between circumstantial moral luck and resultant moral luck, there is good evidence that if the former exists, so does (...) the latter. The challenge is especially pressing for the large group that exclusively deny resultant moral luck. I argue that rejecting resultant moral luck alone is a stable and plausible position. This is because, in a nutshell, the other types of luck can but the results of an action cannot affect what makes one morally responsible. (shrink)

This essay examines Primo Levi’s atheism. First, I reconstruct Levi’s reflection on chance in "If This Is a Man" as the core of his universalist understanding of the concentrationary experience. In Levi, fortune – a moralizing resignification of chance - represents the contingency that decides upon a human existence dramatically marked by the fundamental inequality between the drowned and the saved. This is the philosophical background of chapter October 1944, where Levi outlines his first attempt of anti-theodicy, from which he (...) sketches the basis of his ethics of fortune. Second, by extending the chronological scope of my analysis up to the 1980s, I define Levi’s philosophical atheism in terms of social anti-theodicy. I show how the question of inequality, natural and political, constitutes the supreme contradiction for a theistic understanding of Providence, whose intervention in the human world tends to increase the onto-anthropological structures of political domination. Finally, I examine the 1971 short story “The brokers”, (“Procacciatori d’affari”) in which Levi outlines the conceptual frame of an ethics of fortune, in which the choice of chance constitutes the fundamental egalitarian act to deactivate the theological and political dispositive of privilege. (shrink)

Assuming that an agent can be morally responsible for her forgetting to do something, we can use recent psychological research on prospective memory to assess the psychological assumptions made by normative accounts of the moral responsibility for forgetting. Two accounts of moral responsibility (control accounts and valuative accounts) have been prominent in recent debates about the degree to which agents are blameworthy for their unwitting omissions. This paper highlights the psychological assumptions concerning remembering and forgetting that characterise the accounts. The (...) paper then introduces and reviews recent empirical literature on prospective memory. Finally, it uses the literature to assess the various assumptions. One important implication is that a direct capacitarian control account implies implausible assumptions about the psychological capacity for remembering. A second important implication is that an indirect capacitarian control account and a valuative account highlight different but complementary aspects of remembering and forgetting. (shrink)

The received view of Kant’s moral philosophy is that it precludes all moral luck. But I offer a plausible interpretation according to which Kant embraces moral luck in circumstance and constitution. I interpret the unconditioned nature of transcendental freedom as a person’s ability to do the right thing no matter how she is inclined by her circumstantial and constitutive luck. I argue that various passages about degrees of difficulty relating to circumstantial and constitutive luck provide a reason to accept a (...) pro-moral luck interpretation of Kant. (shrink)

The paper offers an account of luck, fate, and fortune. It begins by showing that extant accounts of luck are deficient because they do not identify the genus of which luck is a species. That genus of properties, the tychic, alert an agent to occasions on which the external world cooperates with or frustrates their goal-achievement. An agent’s sphere of competence is the set of goals that it is possible for them to reliably achieve. Luck concerns occasions on which there (...) is a mismatch between attempt and result; in bad luck the external world thwarts goal-achievement within the agent’s sphere of competence, in good luck the external world assists goal-achievement beyond the agent’s sphere of competence. Fateful events are those where, more passively, the agent finds the external world achieving or frustrating their goals. Fortune concerns the contraction and expansion of the agent’s sphere of competence. Eight reasons are given for accepting the account; its theoretical virtues and various things it explains. Lastly, three objections are answered; that the tychic properties relate to well-being rather than agency, that there are alternative theories of fortune available in the contemporary literature, that the account draws arbitrary distinctions between synonyms. (shrink)

My goal in this paper is to show that two theses that are widely adopted among Kantian ethicists are irreconcilable. The paper is divided into four sections. In the first, I briefly sketch the contours of my own positive view of Kantian ethics, concentrating on the issues relevant to the two theses to be discussed: I argue that agents can perform actions from but not in conformity with duty, and I argue that agents intentionally can perform actions they take to (...) be contrary to duty. In the second, I focus on Barbara Herman’s non-accidental rightness condition from “On the Value of Acting from Duty.” In the third, I focus on Christine Korsgaard’s guise of the objectively good from “Formula of Humanity.” In the fourth, I explain why the positions developed by Herman and Korsgaard are irreconcilable and I make a suggestion about how to move forward. (shrink)

In this article, I explore an important difference between circumstantial luck on the one side and resultant and constitutive luck on the other. In section 1, I argue that, in circumstantial luck, the object of luck and the object of moral judgment are different even though, in resultant and constitutive luck, they are the same. In section 2, I explain that this difference (1) has the potential to undermine the regress argument for moral luck; (2) makes viable the “selective moral (...) luck” argument strategy (affirming some species of moral luck but denying others); and (3) has implications for the heritability of luck. (shrink)

Šis straipsnis padalintas į tris dalis. Pirmojoje ir antrojoje dalyse pristatau žinomą Ištroškusio keliautojo mintinį eksperimentą ir analizuoju, kaip Carolina Sartorio aiškina jo kauzalinę struktūrą. Teigiu, kad kruopštesnis nagrinėjimas atveria šio aiškinimo spragas. Trečiojoje dalyje nagrinėju Sartorio siūlomą naują moralinės sėkmės rūšį, kurią, jos manymu, Ištroškusio keliautojo atvejis atskleidžia. Toliau išplečiu argumentacijos lauką apžvelgdamas kitas šiuolaikines moralinės sėkmės kategorijas ir darau išvadą, kad visos jos nepakankamai apgalvotos.

Most right-libertarians deny the permissibility of government redistribution, referring to the inviolability of private property rights. In a rare exception, Eric Mack offers a right-libertarian argument for luck sufficientarianism based on the catastrophe clause. In this view, people who find themselves in trouble through no fault of their own may violate someone else’s property rights in minor ways to save their own lives. But since a literal interpretation of this clause makes property rights too uncertain, Mack proposes a system of (...) redistribution that will protect people from dire circumstances. As it only applies to those who find themselves in poverty through no fault of their own, Mack’s argument rules out a basic income. However, one can combine Mack’s argument with basic income by arguing that responsibility-insensitive sufficientarianism is superior to luck sufficientarianism. First, luck sufficientarianism allows for the counterintuitive conclusion that people who have made mistakes in their lives do not deserve help from the rest of the community, even if they are engaged in some socially important activity. Second, luck sufficientarianism unduly interferes with people’s private lives to distinguish between deserving and undeserving recipients of social assistance, and inevitably excludes some deserving recipients from the pool of recipients. Third, a condition for holding people responsible for their choices is that they have agency. But maintaining agency requires the presence of some kind of material resources that would protect people from the fear and stress associated with poverty. Thus, responsibility-insensitive sufficientarianism is superior to luck sufficientarianism as an interpretation of the catastrophe clause. And within a libertarian framework, this requires introducing a basic income. First, a basic income technically guarantees everyone protection from extreme poverty and destitution. Second, a basic income guarantees everyone autonomy in how they manage their resources. Third, a basic income does not require means testing and is therefore responsibility-insensitive. Mack’s catastrophe clause therefore offers a right-libertarian argument for a basic income. (shrink)

Philosophers who work on desert-adjustment within axiology often articulate the concept of desert as follows: x deserves y on the basis of z. This formulation allows for a focused examination that encompasses deservers, deservings, and desert bases. I call this first-order desert. This paper posits that axiology grounded solely in first-order desert fails to adequately capture our nuanced intuitions concerning desert. I contend that to construct an axiology that more effectively aligns with our desert-sensitive intuitions, we must incorporate considerations of (...) second-order desert. Second-order desert is defined as follows: x deserves to live a life in which x deserves y on the basis of z. Initially, I provide a definition of first-order desert, followed by an elucidation of second-order desert. Subsequently, I explore various counter-arguments against my proposition. I defend my proposal against potential counter-arguments, demonstrating that a desert-adjusted axiological theory will be significantly better-off by incorporating second-order desert considerations. (shrink)

On a common characterization, moral luck occurs when factors beyond agents’ control affect their moral responsibility. The existence of moral luck is widely contested, however. In this paper, I present a new challenge for deniers of moral luck. It seems that some factors beyond agents’ control—such as moral principles about blame- and praiseworthiness—clearly affect moral responsibility. Thus, moral luck deniers face a dialectical burden that has so far gone unnoticed. They must either point to a relevant difference between factors like (...) moral principles and the kind of factors that according to them do not affect moral responsibility or show how they can avoid having to point to such a difference. I argue that no obvious way to meet the challenge presents itself and that it thus amounts to a serious worry for deniers of moral luck. (shrink)

Virtue ethics is frequently billed as a remedy to the problems of deontological and consequentialist ethics that Bernard Williams identified in his critique of “the morality system.” But how far can virtue ethics be relied upon to avoid these problems? What does Williams’s critique of the morality system mean for virtue ethics? To answer this question, we offer a more principled characterisation of the defining features of the morality system in terms of its organising ambition—to shelter life against luck. This (...) reveals the system to be multiply realisable: the same function can be served by substantively different but functionally equivalent ideas. After identifying four requirements that ethical thought must meet to function as a morality system, we show that they can also be met by certain constellations of virtue-ethical ideas. We thereby demonstrate the possibility of virtue-ethical morality systems raising problems analogous to those besetting their deontological and consequentialist counterparts. This not only widens the scope of Williams’s critique and brings out the cautionary aspect of his legacy for virtue ethics. It also offers contemporary virtue ethicists a more principled understanding of the functional features that mark out morality systems and lie at the root of their problems, thereby helping them to avoid or overcome these problems. (shrink)

Proceeding from the assumptions that forgiveness is at least sometimes elective and that it changes the normative relations between victims and wrongdoers, this paper argues that our practices of forgiveness are subject to an overlooked form of moral luck, forgiveness-luck. Forgiveness-luck is introduced via reflection on ‘differential forgiveness’, wherein of two equally culpable and remorseful agents, one is forgiven and the other not, and both justifiably so. In being forgiven—at least if forgiveness is normatively significant— one undergoes a positive alteration (...) in one’s moral status, i.e., a positive alteration in one’s permissions, obligations, or interpersonal reasons that is implied by one’s being the target of a positive moral responsibility-response. It is also illustrated how responsibility-responses other than forgiveness are candidate determinates of one’s moral status. As such, this paper outlines a capacious conception of moral luck, according to which moral statuses beyond blameworthiness (and praiseworthiness) are determinable by factors beyond one’s control. The capacious conception avoids rendering the existence of moral luck a trivial matter (as it preserves the distinction between moral luck and morally significant plain luck) and—at least if moral responsibility is understood in terms of accountability— preserves continuity with narrower conceptions of moral luck. (shrink)

Is moral responsibility essentially historical, or does an agent's moral responsibility for an action depend only on their psychological structure at that time? In previous work, I have argued that the two main (non‐skeptical) views on moral responsibility and agents’ histories—historicism and standard structuralism—are vulnerable to objections that are avoided by a third option, namely history‐sensitive structuralism. In this paper, I develop this view in greater detail and evaluate the view by comparing it with its three dialectical rivals: skepticism about (...) moral responsibility, historicism, and standard structuralism. Each comparison includes discussion of new work on moral responsibility and agents’ histories, and along the way I offer new arguments for preferring history‐sensitive structuralism, paying special attention to the view's explanatory power. (shrink)