Moral Luck and Liability Lotteries

Res Publica 16 (3):317-331 (2010)

Abstract
Adversaries of Moral Luck (AMLs) are at pains to explain why wrongdoers are liable to bear burdens (punishment, compensation etc.) which are related to the harm they cause, because the consequences of what we do are a matter of luck. One attempt to solve this problem suggests that wrongdoers who cause more harm are liable to bear a greater burden not because they are more blameworthy but rather because they get the short straw in a liability lottery (represented by the apparently indeterminate causal process). In this paper I argue that this attempt fails on several grounds. Apart from the fact that it is hard to see how the implementation of liability lotteries can be motivated and the fact that such scheme presupposes a political order (whereas the notion of liability does not seem to presuppose one), detaching liability from the outcomes of a culpable action undermines whichever justifications there were for imposing liability in the first place. Moreover, relying on the determination of the causal process as a good indication of the wrongdoer’s degree of culpability is mistaken, because the luck brought about through the causal process is not necessarily the only element involved in cases of harmful conduct which lies beyond the wrongdoers’ control
Keywords Moral luck  Lotteries  Criminal attempts  Reparations  David Lewis  Jeremy Waldron
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11158-010-9130-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,413
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Free Will and Luck.Alfred R. Mele - 2006 - Oxford University Press.
Free Will and Luck: Reply to Critics.Alfred R. Mele - 2007 - Philosophical Explorations 10 (2):153 – 155.
Taking Luck Seriously.Michael J. Zimmerman - 2002 - Journal of Philosophy 99 (11):553-576.
Punishment and Responsibility.H. L. A. Hart - 1968 - Philosophy 45 (172):162-162.
Moral Luck.B. A. O. Williams & T. Nagel - 1976 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 50:115 - 151.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Kant Does Not Deny Resultant Moral Luck.Robert J. Hartman - 2019 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 43 (1):136-150.
Criminal Attempts and the Penal Lottery.Andrew C. Khoury - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4):779-792.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Biases and Moral Luck.David Enoch - 2010 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (3):372-386.
Moral Luck and the Law.David Enoch - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (1):42-54.
Moral and Epistemic Luck.Duncan Pritchard - 2006 - Metaphilosophy 37 (1):1–25.
Moral Luck and the Professions.Jeffrey Whitman - 2008 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 27 (1-4):35-54.
Duncan Pritchard, Epistemic Luck.Duncan Pritchard - 2007 - Theoria 73 (2):173-178.
Moral and Epistemic Luck.Andrew Latus - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:149-172.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-10-01

Total views
46 ( #196,190 of 2,291,808 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #181,741 of 2,291,808 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature