Moral luck?

[Qoeleth]

The idea of moral luck is that moral goodness or badness often depends upon circumstances outside our sphere of control. Let me give you an example- a person doctor is dealing with an injured patient, and another injured patient comes in. The doctor attempt to work on both at the same time. Now, in scenario 1: both survive, and the doctor is acclaimed as a hero. In scenario 2: both die: and the doctor is condemned as irresponsible.

Another example, two morally identical, average people are born, one (A) in the USA, one (B) in Nazi Germany. The USA fellow joins the army, does some service, and is acclaimed as a hero of his country. The other fellow (of exactly the same character), joins the Nazi Army, and following orders, kills people at a concentration camp. Now, given reversal of circumstance, A and B would have ended up doing the some things.

So is moral goodness a matter of luck?

 

[sw85]

The idea of moral luck is that moral goodness or badness often depends upon circumstances outside our sphere of control. Let me give you an example- a person doctor is dealing with an injured patient, and another injured patient comes in. The doctor attempt to work on both at the same time. Now, in scenario 1: both survive, and the doctor is acclaimed as a hero. In scenario 2: both die: and the doctor is condemned as irresponsible.

Another example, two morally identical, average people are born, one (A) in the USA, one (B) in Nazi Germany. The USA fellow joins the army, does some service, and is acclaimed as a hero of his country. The other fellow (of exactly the same character), joins the Nazi Army, and following orders, kills people at a concentration camp. Now, given reversal of circumstance, A and B would have ended up doing the some things.

So is moral goodness a matter of luck?

Catholic moral theology is nonconsequentialist, so “moral luck” is irrelevant to the determination of the moral worth of an action.

 

[Qoeleth]

Catholic moral theology is nonconsequentialist, so “moral luck” is irrelevant to the determination of the moral worth of an action.

So, would you say that in the second example, are person A and person B both equally culpable/blamless?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The idea of moral luck is that moral goodness or badness often depends upon circumstances outside our sphere of control. Let me give you an example- a person doctor is dealing with an injured patient, and another injured patient comes in. The doctor attempt to work on both at the same time. Now, in scenario 1: both survive, and the doctor is acclaimed as a hero. In scenario 2: both die: and the doctor is condemned as irresponsible.

Another example, two morally identical, average people are born, one (A) in the USA, one (B) in Nazi Germany. The USA fellow joins the army, does some service, and is acclaimed as a hero of his country. The other fellow (of exactly the same character), joins the Nazi Army, and following orders, kills people at a concentration camp. Now, given reversal of circumstance, A and B would have ended up doing the some things.

So is moral goodness a matter of luck?

You have your history messed up. The German Army was only involved in the operation of prisoner of war camps, which were completely different from concentration camps. Concentration camps were operated by the SS, which was an arm of the Nazi party and loyal only to them. The SS was not a part of the German Army, and in fact, was despised by the Army hierarchy.
Unfortunately, most uninformed people today lump the two together.

 

[runningdude]

You have your history messed up. The German Army was only involved in the operation of prisoner of war camps, which were completely different from concentration camps. Concentration camps were operated by the SS, which was an arm of the Nazi party and loyal only to them. The SS was not a part of the German Army, and in fact, was despised by the Army hierarchy.
Unfortunately, most uninformed people today lump the two together.

Very well put!

To answer address the OP point, even members who simply drifted into the SS would still have an obligation under moral and international law to disobey their commanders to prevent an a crime against humanity such as the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was not simply a case of “bad luck”; it was caused by people actively choosing to do a commit a great evil.

 

[Elisabeth51]

You have your history messed up. The German Army was only involved in the operation of prisoner of war camps, which were completely different from concentration camps. Concentration camps were operated by the SS, which was an arm of the Nazi party and loyal only to them. The SS was not a part of the German Army, and in fact, was despised by the Army hierarchy.
Unfortunately, most uninformed people today lump the two together.

Thank you. And as a side note, my dad was an MP during WWII and guarded German POWs, they kept the SS separate from the Army prisoners, the Army prisoners he said were nice and glad to be out of the war and could be trusted on work details outside the camp. The SS prisoners on the other hand had to be kept in their area and were mean, he said some of them found ways to kill each other.

 

[sw85]

So, would you say that in the second example, are person A and person B both equally culpable/blamless?

No, because they’re not doing the same thing under the same circumstances. They wouldn’t be equally culpable under a consequentialist system either because the consequences of their actions aren’t equivalent.

I have no idea what this “moral luck” thing is supposed to mean. Perhaps it means some people are born with more opportunities to do good. That may be true, but even that doesn’t quite capture the fullness of everything that’s at stake. To whom much is given, much is expected, after all.

 

[Qoeleth]

No, because they’re not doing the same thing under the same circumstances. They wouldn’t be equally culpable under a consequentialist system either because the consequences of their actions aren’t equivalent.

I have no idea what this “moral luck” thing is supposed to mean. Perhaps it means some people are born with more opportunities to do good. That may be true, but even that doesn’t quite capture the fullness of everything that’s at stake. To whom much is given, much is expected, after all.

But the point is, in the second example, persons A and B would do the same thing, if placed under the same circumstances.

Maybe, if I was born into a disadvantaged, abusive situation, I might end up being a criminal. On the other hand, a criminal, if born into a good family with opportunities, might have ended up being a respectable, admired citizen.

So, a large part of our moral standing seems to be just a matter of luck, isn’t it?

 

[sw85]

But the point is, in the second example, persons A and B would do the same thing, if placed under the same circumstances.

That’s far from clear from the example you gave, but even so, your clarification doesn’t clarify anything. What’s the point of the point?

Maybe, if I was born into a disadvantaged, abusive situation, I might end up being a criminal. On the other hand, a criminal, if born into a good family with opportunities, might have ended up being a respectable, admired citizen.

So, a large part of our moral standing seems to be just a matter of luck, isn’t it?

Maybe so. But what’s the point?

 

[LaSainte]

The point is that 2 people of exactly the same moral character could conceivably end up with one in Heaven and the other in Hell based on the Catholic teaching on mortal sin.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The point is that 2 people of exactly the same moral character could conceivably end up with one in Heaven and the other in Hell based on the Catholic teaching on mortal sin.

Hi LaSaainte,

Granting for the sake of the argument that such a thing exists as “same moral character”’ what you say above isn’t problematic in itself, i.e that two people make two different choices that leads them to two different destinies,

What I think you (or the original poster) would want to add to the above point is that the reason thiey make their choices is due to an accident of their environment. But, that isnt true from a Catholic perspective because they still have an atonomous choice (say to obey or disobey an evil order) in whatever circumstance.

Perhaps the underlying objection is, then, that their available choices are different in virtue of circumstances. That would be true, i.e. the American soldier wasnt ordered to do X where the Geman soilder was so ordered. I think the Catholic response to this is the teaching that God gives sufficient grace to each person to make moral choices in every circumstance.

VC

 

[sw85]

The point is that 2 people of exactly the same moral character could conceivably end up with one in Heaven and the other in Hell based on the Catholic teaching on mortal sin.

But they are not exactly the same, and that is precisely why one might be saved and the other damned.

If the point is simply that people can be seduced by bad example, and that bad examples can spread through an entire society, well, that’s just unfortunate. All I can do is point to what I said above, that from those to whom much is given, much is expected – it is entirely conceivable that individual Nazis’ lack of moral perspective may impair their culpability for sin.

 

[Qoeleth]

The other aspect of moral luck is that whether an action is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends upon circumstances beyond the control of the agent.

Let me give you an example- a man is struggling to support his family, so he makes a potentially risky investment. In scenario A, the investment fails, and the man is an irresponsible jerk. In scenario B, the investment pays off handsomely, and the man is courageous and shows faith in Providence.

The point is, the same action could be good or bad, depending essentially on luck.

Another situation- A parent tells their overweight teenage child they should lose weight. In scenario A, the child takes the parents advice, and so the parent is ‘firm and caring’. In scenario B, the child gets depressed, and commits suicide, so the parent is ‘abusive and cruel’.

So, the moral quality of the act seems to come down to factor outside of the agent.

 

[Armyvet007]

The idea of moral luck is that moral goodness or badness often depends upon circumstances outside our sphere of control. Let me give you an example- a person doctor is dealing with an injured patient, and another injured patient comes in. The doctor attempt to work on both at the same time. Now, in scenario 1: both survive, and the doctor is acclaimed as a hero. In scenario 2: both die: and the doctor is condemned as irresponsible.

Another example, two morally identical, average people are born, one (A) in the USA, one (B) in Nazi Germany. The USA fellow joins the army, does some service, and is acclaimed as a hero of his country. The other fellow (of exactly the same character), joins the Nazi Army, and following orders, kills people at a concentration camp. Now, given reversal of circumstance, A and B would have ended up doing the some things.

So is moral goodness a matter of luck?

Only works if we are randomly born into our circumstances; which doesn’t follow the Catholic understanding of God.

 

[runningdude]

The other aspect of moral luck is that whether an action is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends upon circumstances beyond the control of the agent.

Let me give you an example- a man is struggling to support his family, so he makes a potentially risky investment. In scenario A, the investment fails, and the man is an irresponsible jerk. In scenario B, the investment pays off handsomely, and the man is courageous and shows faith in Providence.

The point is, the same action could be good or bad, depending essentially on luck.

Another situation- A parent tells their overweight teenage child they should lose weight. In scenario A, the child takes the parents advice, and so the parent is ‘firm and caring’. In scenario B, the child gets depressed, and commits suicide, so the parent is ‘abusive and cruel’.

So, the moral quality of the act seems to come down to factor outside of the agent.

These examples would only affect one’s reputation on earth. Neither action taken would be inherently sinful, and the consequences are beyond the direct control of the hypothetical parent (absent any further aggravating factors).

One’s reputation is wholly irrelevant as to whether one goes to heaven or hell.

 

[sw85]

The other aspect of moral luck is that whether an action is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends upon circumstances beyond the control of the agent.

Let me give you an example- a man is struggling to support his family, so he makes a potentially risky investment. In scenario A, the investment fails, and the man is an irresponsible jerk. In scenario B, the investment pays off handsomely, and the man is courageous and shows faith in Providence.

The point is, the same action could be good or bad, depending essentially on luck.

Another situation- A parent tells their overweight teenage child they should lose weight. In scenario A, the child takes the parents advice, and so the parent is ‘firm and caring’. In scenario B, the child gets depressed, and commits suicide, so the parent is ‘abusive and cruel’.

So, the moral quality of the act seems to come down to factor outside of the agent.

No, it doesn’t, though, because Catholic moral theology is nonconsequentialist, so the evaluation of the moral character of the act is detached from the act’s consequences.

If my child is, in fact, overweight and needs to lose weight, telling him that is not a bad thing. Perhaps I can deliver the news in a harsh or cruel way, in which case the act of doing so is sinful even if my child takes the advice, loses weight, and becomes healthy and happy. If I tell them that in a loving and caring way (for instance, after my child is diagnosed with diabetes and I’m concerned about their health) and they become depressed and commit suicide, I’m not accountable for it because I’ve done nothing wrong.

The problem here is that you are conflating guilt with shame. Guilt is an objective fact, shame is a subjective appraisal. It is certainly true that if my child committed suicide, I would experience shame – namely because other people would blame me for his suicide. I would not, however, be guilty. The person who fears guilt says “I must not doing wrong.” The person who fears shame says “I must not be seen doing wrong.”

 

[Qoeleth]

These examples would only affect one’s reputation on earth. Neither action taken would be inherently sinful, and the consequences are beyond the direct control of the hypothetical parent (absent any further aggravating factors).

One’s reputation is wholly irrelevant as to whether one goes to heaven or hell.

I realise this- God’s judgment is based on the inner heart- moral luck does not come into that. But I am thinking more from the point of view of philosophical (secular) ethics…

Now, in secular ethics, can the rightness or wrongness of an action be separated from the the community perceives the action?

 

[runningdude]

I realise this- God’s judgment is based on the inner heart- moral luck does not come into that. But I am thinking more from the point of view of philosophical (secular) ethics…

Now, in secular ethics, can the rightness or wrongness of an action be separated from the the community perceives the action?

If we look at this from a Catholic point of view, there does exist a sin of “scandal”, which is committed by participating in actions that could discourage the faith and moral of others.

To use your example of Nazi paramilitary organizations, one could for instance be guilty of scandal for being a passive member of the SS or larger Nazi party, even if one refused to participate in in the holocaust genocide. This would be especially true if one were claiming to be a faithful Christian at the same time. The two ideologies are wholly incompatible - to a even a secular ethicist, this would be hypocritical.

This is of course at the extreme end of the debate here, I would agree that for some actions, public perception of one’s involvement with an evil can be just sinful as actually personally committing an evil.