Philosophical Studies 178 (3):693-711 (2021)

Authors
Stefan Riedener
University of Zürich
Abstract
Is it appropriate to blame people unequally if the only difference between them was a matter of luck? Suppose Alice would drive recklessly if she could, Belen drove recklessly but didn’t harm anyone, and Cleo drove recklessly and killed a child. Luck-advocates emphasize that in real life we do blame such agents very unequally. Luck-skeptics counter that people aren’t responsible for factors beyond their control, or beyond their quality of will. I’ll defend a somewhat reconciliatory view. I’ll concede to the skeptics that these agents are equally culpable. Nonetheless, I’ll suggest with the luck-advocates that it’s fitting to blame them unequally. That’s because their culpability is unequally significant for us: Cleo’s culpability concerns us more than Belen’s, and Belen’s more than Alice’s—just like the fault of a close aggressor concerns us more than that of an aggressor far off in place and time. And it’s fitting for us to respond with more blame to faults that concern us more. Indeed, blaming people simply in proportion to their culpability manifests a form of fetishism, or problematic mere-matter-of-principle concern. So while many skeptical tenets may hold, in substance the luck-advocates are right.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-020-01452-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,740
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

Freedom and Resentment.Peter Strawson - 1962 - Proceedings of the British Academy 48:187-211.
The Theory of Moral Sentiments.Adam Smith - 1759 - Dover Publications.
Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame.Thomas Scanlon - 2008 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Living Without Free Will.Derk Pereboom - 2001 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 48 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Individual Moral Responsibility and Luck.David Worster Concepcion - 2002 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
Salience, Imagination, and Moral Luck.Nathan Stout - 2017 - Philosophical Papers 46 (2):297-313.
Infertility and Moral Luck: The Politics of Women Blaming Themselves for Infertility.Carolyn McLeod & Julie Ponesse - 2008 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (1):126-144.
A Problem for Moral Luck.Steven D. Hales - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (9):2385-2403.
Moral Luck, Freedom, and Leibniz.G. H. R. Parkinson - 1998 - The Monist 81 (4):633-647.
Luck, Blame, and Desert.Michael Cholbi - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 169 (2):313-332.
A Modal Solution to the Problem of Moral Luck.Rik Peels - 2015 - American Philosophical Quarterly 52 (1):73-88.
Moral Luck and Business Ethics.Christopher Michaelson - 2008 - Journal of Business Ethics 83 (4):773-787.
The Problem of Moral Luck: An Argument Against its Epistemic Reduction.Anders Schinkel - 2009 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):267-277.
Moral Luck From Bernard Williams’ Point of View.Zahra Khazai Tamaddon & Fatemeh - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Investigations at University of Tabriz 10 (18):189-218.
Bad Luck or the Ref's Fault?Robert Northcott - 2010 - In Ted Richards (ed.), Soccer and Philosophy. Open Court. pp. 319-326.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-16

Total views
43 ( #254,132 of 2,462,864 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #88,571 of 2,462,864 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes