Philosophy Normative Ethics Questions Long
Moral objectivism is a philosophical position that asserts the existence of objective moral truths that are independent of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. According to moral objectivism, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of personal or societal perspectives. This perspective holds that moral principles are universal and apply to all individuals in all circumstances.
On the other hand, moral luck refers to the idea that factors beyond an individual's control can influence the moral assessment of their actions. It suggests that luck plays a role in determining the moral worth of an action, even if the individual's intentions or efforts were the same.
When examining the concept of moral objectivism in relation to moral luck, we encounter a potential tension between the two ideas. Moral objectivism implies that moral judgments should be based solely on the intentions and actions of individuals, while moral luck suggests that external factors can affect the moral evaluation of those actions.
One way to reconcile these two concepts is by acknowledging that moral objectivism does not deny the existence of moral luck but rather emphasizes the importance of focusing on the aspects that individuals can control. Moral objectivism recognizes that individuals should be held accountable for their intentions and actions, as these are within their sphere of control. However, it also acknowledges that external factors, such as circumstances or consequences, can influence the moral assessment of an action.
For example, consider a situation where two individuals both decide to drive under the influence of alcohol. One individual, due to sheer luck, manages to reach their destination without causing any harm, while the other individual, also under the influence, ends up causing a severe accident. From a moral objectivist perspective, both individuals made the same morally wrong decision to drive while intoxicated. However, the consequences of their actions differ due to factors beyond their control, such as traffic conditions or the presence of other drivers on the road.
Moral objectivism recognizes that individuals should be held responsible for their choices and actions, regardless of the outcomes. However, it also acknowledges that external factors can influence the consequences of those actions, which may affect the severity of moral judgment. In this case, the individual who caused the accident may be seen as more morally blameworthy due to the harm caused, even though both individuals made the same initial morally wrong decision.
In conclusion, moral objectivism and moral luck can coexist by recognizing that moral judgments should primarily focus on the intentions and actions of individuals. While external factors can influence the consequences of those actions, moral objectivism emphasizes personal responsibility for one's choices. By considering both the individual's agency and the role of luck, a more nuanced understanding of moral evaluation can be achieved.