Kant 's Moral Judgement Of Moral Luck

Hobbes and Kant both give a different account of the foundations of morality. Drawing from Hobbes’ Leviathan and Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I will compare their understanding of the foundations of morality. I will discuss the conflicting accounts of the role played by reason versus the role played by desire and inclination in the determination of what is good, evil, right or wrong. Hobbes claims that ordinary experiences establish human beings as self-interested and are driven by desire or aversion and that is why morality is grounded by subjective self-interests. On the other hand, Kant provides a purely rational principle for ordinary views about unconditional moral value, morality has a universal law that applies to all rational beings at all times. The following paper will identify and explain the key points and sources of difference between Hobbes and Kant. First, I will explain both understandings of morality. Second, I will describe how the account of the foundations of morality differs in human nature, rationality and conceptions of morality. I will, in conclusion, argue that Hobbes’ account of morality best works with our ordinary experiences and moral convictions.

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

Thomas Nagel’s “Moral Luck” challenges the Kantian idea that morality is immune from luck by defining and supporting the concept of ‘moral luck.’ Nagel claims that moral luck occurs when “a significant aspect of what someone does depends on factors beyond his control, yet we continue to treat him in that respect as an object of moral judgment.” His argument is as follows:

There are times in life that we attribute good luck to our hard work, dedication or talent but there are some other times when we can say that luck is just a chance that we get. As we can see on the work of this two authors James H. Austin the author of “Four kinds of chance” published in Saturday Review and Robert H. Frank author of “why luck matters much more than you think” published in The Atlantic (May 2016) they show the reader how chances can influence in different ways. After reading their work I consider Robert H Frank article more effectively fulfills his thesis.

The second type of luck, circumstantial, was described as “luck in one’s circumstances – the kind of problems and situations one faces”, (Nagel, p.28). The drunken drivers’ example belongs to the third type of luck: resultant luck. To many philosophers, the third and fourth type of luck is accountable for one which deals with the causes and effects of action, as Nagel explains, “luck in how one is determined by antecedent circumstances, and luck in the way one’s action and projects turn out.”, (Nagel, p.28). The commonality of these four categories of luck is the idea that “one cannot be more culpable or estimable for anything than one is for that fraction of it which is under one’s control. It seems irrational to take or dispense credit or blame for matters over which a person has no control, or for their influence on results over which he has partial control.” (Nagel, p.28).

This essay examines Thomas Nagel’s paper, Moral Luck, and aims to dissect the assumptions and arguments presented. Moral Luck challenges the Kantian idea that morality is immune from luck by defining and supporting the concept of ‘moral luck.’ Nagel claims that moral luck occurs when “a significant aspect of what someone does depends on factors beyond his control, yet we continue to treat him in that respect as an object of moral judgment.” This essay begins by presenting Nagel’s argument and supporting claims and is followed by my analytical critique. Though Nagel highlights some provocative questions and scenarios, I will argue that one of his premises makes an assumption that is rather unsubstantiated. I then speculate how Nagel might defend his argument in response. The essay is concluded with my own interpretation of Nagel’s argument and moral luck as a fully realized phenomenon.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Generally speaking, it is equated with good things coming to you, but what about when luck saves you from a negative situation. It would be easy to say that luck can’t come from bad things, but it is a fact that it happens. In an example, similar to Spelman, if a person was texting and driving and hit a car head on, killed the other person, but survived, would that make them worse than someone who was texting but missed the other car? If you asked someone this today, they would automatically say that the person that was responsible for a death is both more ethically and morally wrong. This all would fall under the type of moral luck Spelman refers to as resultant moral luck. However, if you scrutinize the details, you start to wonder, did the driver that missed have more luck or was he better at texting and driving? In, all reality both drivers were texting and driving, regardless of the outcome they were both wrong, just in different capacities. So, since I believe this, Spelman would say I am not a follower of resultant moral luck. In my opinion, this does define both

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right;

The result of anything depends on the action, whether it is good or bad. Every person at one point has heard from someone or somewhere. It is has been engraved into many brains that the result of one's actions can impact the output. Whether it is a drastic change or just a small change, a change is a change. Now an example where this moral is not agreed upon is the short story “Periwinkles”.

The good will is what we want to do unless something external prevents us from accomplishing it. It rests on good intentions, which are at the source of our every action. However, the circumstances we find ourselves into may disrupt our good intentions, and the results may not be what we had expected. On such terms, we should not be held accountable for the negative results, since our very first intention was to do good. I other words, the good will is good in itself, by virtue, and it is independent from any type of inclination.

In “Mortal Questions," Thomas Nagel attempts to show that some human experiences are completely beyond understanding. Nagel attempts to justify that even though your life has ends, the choices one makes will not influence the end result. Nagel first clarifies his position by defining a few terms. Agent, as Nagel describes it, is defined as being in control of one’s life. Nagel states that end results are influenced by a combination of factors and that it is not in the agent’s control. In this paper, I will describe Nagels reasoning for believing that one cannot control their ends and fates. Fate is the event beyond a person’s control. Then, I will provide two reasons to object that the idea that one’s actions do not influence the end results is false.