How can we determine what actions, if any, we're morally responsible for? At first the concept of the control principle was in practice until people came to realize that they didn’t actually practice this to the fullest degree; this lead to the creation of the idea of Moral Luck. Two philosophers with opposing viewpoints on the concept of Moral Luck were Nagel and Kant. I believe Kant has a good base for what he believes, but I don’t think he has all the answers as far as the role luck plays in our decisions.
To start things off we should discuss what the control principle is. "The control principle states: We should morally assess an agent on the basis of a factor, F, only if F is under the agent’s control". Basically we should only morally judge actions only on factors that the agent has control over. An example of this would be if we had two drivers on the road heading home. Assume that both of them are following all the rules and regulations of the road. All the sudden, a dog runs out in front of one of the drivers resulting in the dog dying. If you were to follow the control principle then both drivers would be morally assessed the same. The dog being killed was an uncontrollable factor to the agent. We should not morally judge him more harshly than the other driver because an uncontrollable misfortunate event took place.
The problem with the control principle is that if you follow it exactly then you really can’t hold anyone morally responsible for their actions. A lot of factors go into decisions and actions. It would be next to impossible to decipher every little detail of whether it was within the agents control or not. So, if following this principle, you would pretty much be saying no one is morall...
... middle of paper ...
...at all the parts you’ll see this was not his true intention. Jones was told that if he didn’t kill Smith then his entire family would be killed. Well clearly Jones is going to want to save his family. Now even though Jones has respect for Smith, he can’t place that above his family.
The actual conclusion to this given situation is that Jones had good intentions. He intended to save his family. Trying to save your entire family from being murdered by a hit man seems to be a pretty good intention in any rational human beings eyes. The fact that Smith and Jones be put in that situation may be a matter of luck, maybe even the act of shooting Smith was. This is irrelevant though when you’re looking to where the individual’s true intentions lie. Basically, luck plays its part on situations but it's more of where your intention lies in the grand scheme of things.
Witnesses who were at the party shared that Jones was very drunk before he grabbed a gun from his room and opened fire. According to people who were at the party, several guests had attempted to get Jones to stop drinking and go to sleep, something
Some might feel that a person's choices can be justified by certain situations. That certain reasons can make a bad behavior okay. However, this is not true because of “deactivation of moral standards,” which is the justification of bad behavior. “It starts with the assertion that people believe we are more moral than we actually are, but the process of moral disengagement leads us to act immorally, and justify our bad behavior,” Craig Johnson a leadership ethicist
Rachel presents two cases called Jones vs Smith; they are exactly the same except one involves killing and the other letting die. In both cases Jones and Smith are in for a big inheritance if their 6-year-old cousin dies. They both go into the bathroom with the same intention of killing the kid. In the
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
Chapter Six. God and Judge Jones. Charles Pierce talks to Judge Jones about how he was promoted to his Judge position and how Judge Jones became a Judge. In the words of Judge Jones, “In the first six months,” he recalls, “I had this germ of an idea. I thought, ‘Gee, I’d like to do this.’ That’s not unusual. A lot of lawyers want to become judges. So, I held that thought.” (Page 136) Judge Jones also made a ruling that the public did not agree with and he was put on a protection plan along with his life. He was being judged by public opinion. Judge Jones certainly isn’t the idiot in this situation. Those who tried to kill him deserve to be.
Williams’s and Nagel’s concept of moral luck encounter more disagreement than being agreed since moral luck is not universally applicable in every situation. The existence of either motive or agent-regret will, in some cases, be enigma since they are private matter and unknown to the rest of us. Therefore, the case of moral luck has been yet remains unsolved due to its inconsistency. On the other hand, if motives and intentions (of being moral) are not counted and/or agent-regret does exist, it will be unfair to the person who is incorrectly treated since the result is actually out of their control. Thus, the moral luck is a sensitive matter and should be applied per case based on the presented facts. There is no such universal formula for relevance of moral luck in each situation.
“Moral requirements are based on standards of rationality” (Johnson). Rational thinking allows us to determine right from wrong. This conscious decision leaves one with a choice of whether or not to act upon it. Understanding that a certain action, or lack thereof, will lead to negative consequences yet deliberately choosing such action is the bases of moral culpability. However, subjectivity of ethics and philosophies such as utilitarianism prove that moral culpability is entirely 2-dimensional and cannot account or explain the wide range of conflicting morals and ethics. An action can not be convicted as morally culpable because morals are entirely subjective and cannot be classified as right or wrong.
In Moral Luck, Nagel believes that certain actions are unjustifiably bad within themselves or risky that the outcomes of the action does not make it right. When outcome does play a role in moral judgement than it can be objective and timeless. Kant was insistent on the irrelevance of personality traits within the control of will. If Kant believes that than it would rule out moral judgements of virtues and vices. I disagree with Kant, I believe that when it comes to a good will the outcome and the action is affected by your personality and traits in which could make the will
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
After murdering a United States congressman Jones knew the end of his rule was near. He ordered his entire following, some 914 people, to commit what he called "revolutionary suicide." This included more than 200 children.
moral responsibility is what all of humanity struggles with and strives to achieve. Many forces
Additionally, the film shows the true power of manipulation, and how easily someone of power can deceive and mistreat others without them even knowing. Personally, I found the film to be very interesting, and I felt as though it accurately represented the events and those who were personally affected. However, the film stated that Jones developed a dependency on substances closer to the date of the mass suicide. This part of the film was not very thorough, and the filmmakers seemed to disregard much of it. Although, all in all, the film was interesting as well as
Despite “doing the right thing,” there are things that can happen beyond our control that can alter the good results we were expecting. However, consequences are measurable and create lasting effects on people. Even though we may intend to do the right thing, a positive outcome is not guaranteed. Sometimes our actions do not just affect us personally, they can also have repercussions for other individuals, such as members of our families. Intentions, on the other hand, cannot always be determined. While someone might claim that they acted with good intentions, that is not always necessarily the
We have our own moral codes but our decisions are solely based on the impact of our perspective on the people’s welfare and happiness. Although it is in our perspective as utilitarian to decide what actions to make, the theory of utilitarianism has strengths and weaknesses.
This world has turned into a place where people are required to take full responsibility for their actions and words. Often we do this informally, via moral judgment or if not through legal judgment. In other words we become morally responsible, deserving praise, blame, reward or punishment for an act or omission based upon one’s moral obligations, thus contradicting the concept of free will. Main viewpoints on moral responsibility interact with the following three, constructed by human action: determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. A philosopher once said “Just as we separated the concept ‘free’ from the concept of ‘will’ in order to better understand ‘free will,’ so we need to separate ‘moral’ and responsibility."