Thomas Nagel Moral Luck

The question of whether we are more heavily influenced by our surroundings and/or our upbringing as opposed to what comes naturally to us is a very controversial ongoing debate. This examination can be seen in the 1965 experiment known as “The John/Joan Case”, intended to test the theory of “Nature vs Nurture”. This dispute within psychology is concerned with the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a product of either inherited or acquired characteristics. “Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence without that affects him after his birth.” (Galton)

If you think of life and existence in general as a canvas, meaning all of time included simultaneously, the past, present and future. Within that canvas lie certain sets of options(choices) which are available to us at any given moment. The path that we found ourselves are predetermined by factors we had no control over. Your genetic make up, for instance, you had nothing to do with. You can’t take credit for not having the brain of a psychopath, the brain of the mentally disabled person, genetic predisposition to cancer and you name it. The actions of others impact the options (choices) available to you-the actions of those around affects your will because it can change the choices that are available to you at any given moment. If certain

3.     We must be able to compare our actions to some ideal or standard of morality.

Gottlieb and DeLoache ask the question, do babies have the devil in them, or are they divine? Over the course of this book, the nature versus nurture concept arises. Nature is the biological predisposition or the genes that you are born with. Nurture is

I infer several conclusions from Smith’s definition and analysis of sympathy. First, sympathy is a mode of perception. The “eye of the mind” or the imagination perceives the situation witch elicits primary sentiments and secondary agreeable or disagreeable sentiments which are the basis of moral judgement. Secondly, I conclude from Smith’s propositions that the mind is a passive recipient, therefore moral knowledge is a by-product of external stimuli. In other words our external sense stimuli provoke a change in our minds, from which our imaginations produce sentiments by which we judge the propriety or merit of another’s conduct.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

“Is it unfair that some people are born rich and some are born poor? If it 's unfair, should anything be done about it?” (Nagel 76) In the opening paragraph, Nagel proposes these questions. He explains that some people are born lucky and others are born unlucky. This is not describing a measurement of one’s levels of luck, but the financial status and genes that they are born with. Throughout this chapter, Nagel gives examples of these situations, as well as ideas on how to solve these inequalities in our society. Nagel makes a lot of great points on the situations that people are born into, the causes of inequalities, and his proposed answers to these issues; however, I do not believe these situations are as straight forward as he makes them out to be.

Alexis Alonso Thomas Nagel, the author of “What Does It All Mean?” is a man with many wonders. Throughout this book, you will most likely rack your brain with thoughts that question your beliefs. Concepts and ideas that you would have never thought about begin popping up everywhere. Many of these ideas will put your mind to the test and you’ll probably sit on the couch and think about these concepts for hours on end.

Thomas Nagel, Professor of Philosophy at New York University developed the current philosophical idea of Moral luck. Kant denied the possibility of moral luck but Nagel created the idea of moral luck based on Kant’s opposition. As quoted above, Kant thought that luck should not be the basis of judgement. He would have said that actions would be criticized if they turned out bad. However, by luck it can turn out well. Kant’s view appears incorrect but it answers the problem about “moral responsibility to which we possess no satisfactory solution”. (Nagel 440) The problem of moral luck is unsettling to the philosophical world. Throughout this reflection, the concepts of moral luck, the plausible responses to the problem and the objections to the problem will be discussed. The principle of moral luck is substantial yet debatable, therefore, there are many responses, of which I believe incoherence to be the most plausible one.

Moral luck, a person treated as an object of moral judgment and regardless of the facts that support the evidence of the luck. In the “Crash Course Philosophy” video, tells us … “Acts or states of affairs for which you can praise or blame”. A person can only be responsible for things that are possible for them to cause and that anything else would be out of their control. To not have control over what happens whether good or bad would be of nature. The control principle is allied to have control of the situation being able to prevent the good or bad. This allows the conclusion to support the consequences of the situation. The principle sounds plausible but some people decline this method of thinking and leaving the assessment of the situation impossible to determine making this principle “intuitively compelling” (Nelkin).

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

I’ve had several instances through out my life where I think I’m living in a dream and can’t seem to wake up. It’s actually one of the scariest thoughts I’ve ever had. This thought gives my body chills and accelerates my heartbeat the feeling is just alarming. Every time this thought comes up I try and erase it from my memory. Now I’m coming across it again in Nagel’s book “What does it all mean?”. Thomas Nagel writes about many interesting ideas in this novel but some of the more controversial topics deal with the idea how do we know anything?, Freewill, and what is the meaning of life. Some of his ideas in this book I can completely relate to and other ideas are completely irrational and are very hard for me to believe.

When we think of a wrong action, we believe that this wrong action will cause harm in some sort of way. It is because of this reason that Nagel asks that we explore the external factors of a situation so that we can conclude whether the factors of this experience have an overall effect of our actions which he later explains to be different kinds of moral luck. It is from these different kinds of luck that Nagel believes that these experience, both right and wrong, shaped our character that we individually experience. Nagel states that where and how you grow up is out of your control. An example of this would be a child in the states who has grown up in a first world country and is provided with food, shelter, education and fears the dark because

Luck. What even is luck? Does it really exist? The dictionary defines it as; the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities. Well if I believed in luck, I’d say that I have none. I also am not the most unlucky, I mean I’ve got a roof over my head and food whenever I need it, yet I am not necessarily lucky. I don’t do well in school because of “luck” I do well because I chose to try. I chose to do things but even then it's not like I really chose, life is determined by cause and effect, as that feeling of free will is an illusion. I am really having trouble with this; I don’t see myself as lucky nor do I believe in it. Even asking my friends’ opinion hasn’t helped.

Whether or not humans are essentially evil or sympathetic is a question that has long left many philosophers in a state of conflict. Through the evaluation of natural human qualities, many different opinions have been formed. The so called “laws” of the world attempt to define a set of uncertain rules which are to govern society in its most raw form, dictate moral rights and wrongs, and create boundaries. Every single action can be separated into any of these three categories, depending upon the action. The Bible states that it is only through baptism that a sin may be removed from the carrier. Non-religious opinions may offer a similar opinion in a sense that humans possess the capability of committing evil acts. Human beings are in