Moral Luck: Crash Course Philosophy #39

Summary

This episode of Crash Course Philosophy delves into the complexities of moral responsibility, using the example of two drunk drivers to explore the nuances of blame and praise. It discusses the principle 'ought implies can,' the difference between causal and moral responsibility, and introduces the concept of moral luck, as described by philosophers like Thomas Nagel. The episode challenges viewers to reconsider the assignment of praise and blame, questioning whether these should be based solely on actions within our control or serve a broader social function.

Takeaways

• 🚗 The script discusses a moral dilemma involving two drunk drivers, A and B, to explore the concept of moral responsibility.
• 🤔 It questions whether B, who caused a fatal accident, is more blameworthy than A, who drove drunk but encountered no incidents.
• 📚 The script introduces the principle 'ought implies can,' suggesting moral responsibility is tied to actions within one's control.
• 🧐 The difference between causal responsibility and moral responsibility is highlighted, with the latter reserved for moral agents capable of discerning right from wrong.
• 🥥 An analogy of a falling coconut is used to illustrate the concept that harm can occur without any moral wrongdoing.
• 🔍 Thomas Nagel's perspective on moral luck is presented, emphasizing how external factors can affect the moral quality of actions.
• 🎯 Nagel differentiates between types of luck, including constitutive luck (personal disposition), circumstantial luck (situations), and luck due to antecedent and consequent circumstances.
• 🤷‍♂️ The script challenges the traditional assignment of praise and blame, suggesting that much of what influences our actions is beyond our control.
• 🏆 It argues that praise and blame might be more about societal reinforcement of behaviors rather than true moral responsibility.
• 🤝 The importance of intention in moral responsibility is acknowledged, even if the outcomes of actions are influenced by luck.
• 🌐 The episode concludes by connecting the discussion to broader themes of justice and the societal implications of moral responsibility.

Q & A

What is the main ethical dilemma presented in the script involving A and B?

The main ethical dilemma is about moral responsibility and blameworthiness in the context of two drunk drivers, A and B, who made the same choice to drive while intoxicated but faced different outcomes due to external factors.

What principle in moral philosophy is mentioned to discuss the concept of moral responsibility?

The principle mentioned is 'ought implies can,' which states that if you ought to do something morally, you must first be able to do it, implying that moral responsibility is tied to what is within one's control.

How does the script differentiate between causal responsibility and moral responsibility?

Causal responsibility refers to being part of the chain of events leading to an outcome, while moral responsibility involves deserving praise or blame for an event, which is reserved for moral agents capable of making decisions based on right and wrong.

What is the role of 'ought implies can' in determining moral responsibility?

The role of 'ought implies can' is to establish that one can only be held morally responsible for situations that are within their control, as it is a logical principle that aligns with the idea that moral requirements must be possible to fulfill.

What is the difference between constitutive luck and circumstantial luck as discussed by Thomas Nagel?

Constitutive luck pertains to the inherent dispositions or personality traits one has, which can influence actions, while circumstantial luck relates to the situations one finds themselves in, which can also significantly impact behavior.

How does the script illustrate the concept of moral luck?

The script illustrates moral luck through the example of the two drunk drivers, A and B. Both made the same morally wrong choice, but due to external circumstances, only B's actions resulted in harm, leading to a perception of greater moral blameworthiness despite similar intentions.

What is the significance of the 'creepy scenario' in the script regarding privacy violation?

The 'creepy scenario' is used to highlight the distinction between doing wrong and causing harm. Even though the victim does not experience harm because they are unaware of the violation, the act of taking and sharing the photos is still considered morally wrong.

What is the philosophical concept of 'moral luck' as discussed in the script?

Moral luck refers to the idea that external factors, which are out of an individual's control, can significantly affect the moral evaluation of their actions. It challenges the traditional view of moral responsibility by considering the role of luck in determining the outcomes of our actions.

What is the role of intention in moral responsibility according to the script?

Intention plays a crucial role in moral responsibility as both A and B intended to drive while drinking but did not intend to harm anyone. The script suggests that moral responsibility should consider the intentions behind actions, not just the outcomes.

How does the script suggest we should assign praise and blame in society?

The script suggests that praise and blame in society may not always be about moral responsibility but can serve as tools to encourage and discourage certain behaviors. It implies that societal norms and interests can influence how we assign praise and blame, even when outcomes are out of an individual's control.

What is the conclusion of the script regarding the moral responsibility of the two drunk drivers, A and B?

The script concludes that according to the philosophical perspective discussed, A and B should be considered equally blameworthy for their actions because moral responsibility should only be assigned for aspects of actions that are within one's control, not for external factors.