Moral Luck

[Dja Majista]

This is just an intro. If I see people are interested I will keep it moving.

It's late at night, about 10 o'clock. This lady is walking down the street (for whatever reason) and assume she is innocent. On either side of her are two tall buildings. Unbeknownst to this woman there is an assassin in each building, each with the same brand of .50 cal. sniper rifle aimed at her head. Neither assassin is aware of eachother's presence. But each are dead set on murdering the woman. Now, here's the rub. Assassin #1, unknowingly had his gun replaced with an exact replica of his own, only it doesn't shoot. This is not the case for assassin #2. So, both of them pull the trigger at the exact same time. Assassin #2's bullet comes from five stories up careening through the air and landing dead on target (no pun intended). The woman is killed instantly. Assassin #1, though he planned to do the same exact thing, was incapable of firing a bullet in the first place.

As we know, federal law would have #2 in prison for murder, and #1 in prison for attempted murder. The law treats them differently; are they morally different?

I'm pretty sure I know how people will respond to this. Don't worry, it's gonna get deeper. I'm just laying out this case to demonstrate the concept of moral luck. Basically, what we have here is (arguably) a legitimate example of how someone can be morally assessed based on factors outside of their control.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I knew that law class would be good for something on here.

I don't see how the one with the fake gun could be caught really, but if he did then yes it would be attempted murder.

Saying he did, then yes the one who did the deed would be in more trouble. There is the action and the mens rea, the criminal mindset. You have to prove both in a criminal court (unlike a civil court which is just liability).

If I took something of yours by innocent mistake, say we both had something that looked exactly alike. I did something that would be considered wrong, but my intent wasn't there. So I wouldn't generally be in trouble.

Obviously you have to actually do the deed, because we can't read minds.

This is why premeditated crimes carry a stiffer penalty than crimes of passion. But you need both the deed and the mens rea. The person with the fake gun could make all kinds of excuses. We are allowed to have guns anywhere now provided we have a license. Shoot first, ask questions later. (At least in GA).

[Dja Majista]

Dec 15, 2008 8:39:31 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I knew that law class would be good for something on here.

I don't see how the one with the fake gun could be caught really, but if he did then yes it would be attempted murder.

Saying he did, then yes the one who did the deed would be in more trouble. There is the action and the mens rea, the criminal mindset. You have to prove both in a criminal court (unlike a civil court which is just liability).

If I took something of yours by innocent mistake, say we both had something that looked exactly alike. I did something that would be considered wrong, but my intent wasn't there. So I wouldn't generally be in trouble.

Obviously you have to actually do the deed, because we can't read minds.

This is why premeditated crimes carry a stiffer penalty than crimes of passion. But you need both the deed and the mens rea. The person with the fake gun could make all kinds of excuses. We are allowed to have guns anywhere now provided we have a license. Shoot first, ask questions later. (At least in GA).

Ahh, nice. I probably shouldn't have mentioned law though. This is not a matter of judiciary action and legislation. It's simply one of morality.

I was waiting to hear something like "Assassin #1 and #2 are of course morally the same". Laws must assess people by what is evident. On the other hand, a person's morality is assessed simply by what is (evident or not).

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 17, 2008 21:25:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Dec 15, 2008 8:39:31 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I knew that law class would be good for something on here.

I don't see how the one with the fake gun could be caught really, but if he did then yes it would be attempted murder.

Saying he did, then yes the one who did the deed would be in more trouble. There is the action and the mens rea, the criminal mindset. You have to prove both in a criminal court (unlike a civil court which is just liability).

If I took something of yours by innocent mistake, say we both had something that looked exactly alike. I did something that would be considered wrong, but my intent wasn't there. So I wouldn't generally be in trouble.

Obviously you have to actually do the deed, because we can't read minds.

This is why premeditated crimes carry a stiffer penalty than crimes of passion. But you need both the deed and the mens rea. The person with the fake gun could make all kinds of excuses. We are allowed to have guns anywhere now provided we have a license. Shoot first, ask questions later. (At least in GA).

Ahh, nice. I probably shouldn't have mentioned law though. This is not a matter of judiciary action and legislation. It's simply one of morality.

I was waiting to hear something like "Assassin #1 and #2 are of course morally the same". Laws must assess people by what is evident. On the other hand, a person's morality is assessed simply by what is (evident or not).

Well then they wouldn't be wrong morally...

Unless she was a criminal leader and they were trying to bring her down, or an undercover something. Or if she was trying to kill the president or something.

Or if that society had different feelings about what was right or wrong.

[Dja Majista]

Dec 22, 2008 11:48:50 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Dec 17, 2008 21:25:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Ahh, nice. I probably shouldn't have mentioned law though. This is not a matter of judiciary action and legislation. It's simply one of morality.

I was waiting to hear something like "Assassin #1 and #2 are of course morally the same". Laws must assess people by what is evident. On the other hand, a person's morality is assessed simply by what is (evident or not).

Well then they wouldn't be wrong morally...

Unless she was a criminal leader and they were trying to bring her down, or an undercover something. Or if she was trying to kill the president or something.

Or if that society had different feelings about what was right or wrong.

Look, the case already specifies that the woman is innocent. And you don't need to concern yourself with moral relativity here. It's assumed that the specific moral standard we are working with at least holds that killing innocent people is wrong. It's pretty straightforward.

All the case is demonstrating is that if we say morality is determined by the consequences of one's actions, then it is possible for morality to be determined by things outside of our control (which would be moral luck). Otherwise morality must not be determined by the consequences of one's actions. That's all.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 22, 2008 12:13:54 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Dec 22, 2008 11:48:50 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well then they wouldn't be wrong morally...

Unless she was a criminal leader and they were trying to bring her down, or an undercover something. Or if she was trying to kill the president or something.

Or if that society had different feelings about what was right or wrong.

Look, the case already specifies that the woman is innocent. And you don't need to concern yourself with moral relativity here. It's assumed that the specific moral standard we are working with at least holds that killing innocent people is wrong. It's pretty straightforward.

All the case is demonstrating is that if we say morality is determined by the consequences of one's actions, then it is possible for morality to be determined by things outside of our control (which would be moral luck). Otherwise morality must not be determined by the consequences of one's actions. That's all.

Oh yea, I saw that, like I said it would only be different if the mindset AND the act are bad. A person could kill her on accident and not be wrong, or a person could not kill someone and want to and would be wrong as well. Morals isn't made just by action it's the intent. but since we can't judge that person's actions before they do them usually (except by premeditated means (finding letters saying, I want to kill her, etc.) We usually have to go on by they did. Both makes sense.

[Dja Majista]

Ok, so what do you think about this:

Can a person can be moral evaluated by intent alone? Or must we evaluate them by both the intent and the action?

I'm more inclined to affirm the former. Remember, this is not about what we can find by gathering evidence in a real life situation. This assumes that you already know the person's intentions, and all other relevant information needed to reach a conclusion about that person's morality.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 23, 2008 11:02:10 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Ok, so what do you think about this:

Can a person can be moral evaluated by intent alone? Or must we evaluate them by both the intent and the action?

I'm more inclined to affirm the former. Remember, this is not about what we can find by gathering evidence in a real life situation. This assumes that you already know the person's intentions, and all other relevant information needed to reach a conclusion about that person's morality.

My wording must have been inconsistent, you'd still be morally wrong in a sense. But then again we are all tempted to do something that's "wrong", but since he took that action in that way, we can conclude that he was wrong. Having sin inside of us isn't enough to make us completely morally wrong.

[Dja Majista]

ok this is straying way too much. It's not that complicated. This is just the intro; we've only barely scratched the surface of the concept of moral luck.

This is not about what we will be able to determine in a court of law. We just assume we know everything in the case that's given about the person and the situation, and we know nothing more except what's implied. It's very simplified from real life, I know. But it's built that way because it has to be useful as a hypothetical situation for us to analyze.

Now this is just my opinion but laws are not meant to assess people morally. They are meant to assess people pragmatically, so that people who are likely to yield a net damage to society are detained (or eliminated) so that the society/community does not have to worry. I'll give an example of how this applies. Let's say the police catch a serial killer and he's given life in prison. Obviously they don't want him living freely with the community anymore and for good reasons. Now suppose there was a way, to make it so that he never did anything criminal again. Suppose they get him to turn his life around somehow and know for sure that he will live a good peaceful life as a citizen from then on. After that, there wouldn't be much of a reason to put him in prison anymore. (There are reasons, but none would be under the category "to keep this particular person from doing more harm to society.") But, anyway, you've gotten me talking about something else. I'm sure we can come back to this another time.

I'm more concerned about how you'd answer this (I guess you missed it?):

Can a person can be morally evaluated by intent alone? Or must we evaluate them by both the intent and the action?

You mentioned the importance of intent earlier. That's good. That's how we move on to the next case. I'd just like to hear you elaborate on it more.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 23, 2008 22:58:43 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

ok this is straying way too much. It's not that complicated. This is just the intro; we've only barely scratched the surface of the concept of moral luck.

This is not about what we will be able to determine in a court of law. We just assume we know everything in the case that's given about the person and the situation, and we know nothing more except what's implied. It's very simplified from real life, I know. But it's built that way because it has to be useful as a hypothetical situation for us to analyze.

Now this is just my opinion but laws are not meant to assess people morally. They are meant to assess people pragmatically, so that people who are likely to yield a net damage to society are detained (or eliminated) so that the society/community does not have to worry. I'll give an example of how this applies. Let's say the police catch a serial killer and he's given life in prison. Obviously they don't want him living freely with the community anymore and for good reasons. Now suppose there was a way, to make it so that he never did anything criminal again. Suppose they get him to turn his life around somehow and know for sure that he will live a good peaceful life as a citizen from then on. After that, there wouldn't be much of a reason to put him in prison anymore. (There are reasons, but none would be under the category "to keep this particular person from doing more harm to society.") But, anyway, you've gotten me talking about something else. I'm sure we can come back to this another time.

I'm more concerned about how you'd answer this (I guess you missed it?):

Can a person can be morally evaluated by intent alone? Or must we evaluate them by both the intent and the action?

You mentioned the importance of intent earlier. That's good. That's how we move on to the next case. I'd just like to hear you elaborate on it more.

Well I'm making it simple, that person's intent reflects their morals, your morals are part of who you are, they are there and determined long before you make the action. Obviously if they are assassins they have assumed this lifestyle long before they made this decision in particular, so they already have a different set of morals. Morals just don't spontaneously change every single time we do something.

That is different from being tempted, tempted to kill someone who raped your sister or your ex-wife who took everything from you. Or on a more common level, tempted to lie about something to cover it up.

[warmunger]

Dec 17, 2008 21:25:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Dec 15, 2008 8:39:31 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I knew that law class would be good for something on here.

I don't see how the one with the fake gun could be caught really, but if he did then yes it would be attempted murder.

Saying he did, then yes the one who did the deed would be in more trouble. There is the action and the mens rea, the criminal mindset. You have to prove both in a criminal court (unlike a civil court which is just liability).

If I took something of yours by innocent mistake, say we both had something that looked exactly alike. I did something that would be considered wrong, but my intent wasn't there. So I wouldn't generally be in trouble.

Obviously you have to actually do the deed, because we can't read minds.

This is why premeditated crimes carry a stiffer penalty than crimes of passion. But you need both the deed and the mens rea. The person with the fake gun could make all kinds of excuses. We are allowed to have guns anywhere now provided we have a license. Shoot first, ask questions later. (At least in GA).

Ahh, nice. I probably shouldn't have mentioned law though. This is not a matter of judiciary action and legislation. It's simply one of morality.

I was waiting to hear something like "Assassin #1 and #2 are of course morally the same". Laws must assess people by what is evident. On the other hand, a person's morality is assessed simply by what is (evident or not).

I must agree. I can't really add on 2 zat at all. Well done

[Dja Majista]

Ok, I'm kind of bored so I am going to lay out the next case.

So you're driving through your neighborhood, just a little reckless like you always are, going about 10mph around the corners, and 30-35mph down the straight streets. You do this a lot, and you usually make it home without anything happening. In fact, for you, nothing ever does happen. Now, let's say, someone else happens to do the same thing as well. He's a frequent reckless driver too. Now, one day he's driving down this street, not really paying a whole lot of attention. Actually he's trying to change CD's. All of a sudden a ball rolls out in front of him, say oh, 50 feet ahead of the car. He does not see this, but out of the corner of his eye he sees a kid running out in front of him. He tries to brake but he was too late. The kid gets nailed, sent to the hospital, and he doesn't make it.

Now, everything you've done is the same as this other person who is now being charged with vehicular homicide. But the results and consequences of your behavior are extremely different, largely due to factors beyond your control. Now the question: Are you morally equivalent to this guy?

I don't know. They seem morally equivalent to me.

[warmunger]

Not 2 me. Niether of us N-tended 2 kill any 1 but I was lucky, he wasn't. If I new the guy I wood tell him that he coodn't be like me, that I was good at it and he wasn't. That wood stop me from driving that way, tho. I feel like it isn't a crime until U get caught. I'm not equal 2 him until I got the same end results as he did.