Philosophy
Moral Luck and the Control Principle in Ethics
Quick fact
Philosopher Thomas Nagel identified four kinds of moral luck: outcome luck, constitutive luck, circumstantial luck, and causal luck. Each challenges the idea that moral responsibility is immune to luck.
Why this is interesting
You probably believe people should only be blamed for what they can control. But if a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, we blame him more if the pedestrian dies than if they survive—even though the outcome was partly luck. Is that fair?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Moral Luck and the Control Principle in Ethics
The control principle says we are morally responsible only for what is within our control—our choices and efforts, not external outcomes. That seems fair: a reckless driver who accidentally kills a child is not necessarily more blameworthy than one who doesn't, yet our moral reactions differ. This is moral luck. But there are deeper forms: your inborn temperament (constitutive luck), the society you're born into (circumstantial luck), and even the fact that your actions are shaped by prior causes (causal luck). All these show that many factors affecting moral judgments are beyond personal control, creating a conflict between the control principle and our actual ethical intuitions.
A deeper explanation
The tension between moral luck and the control principle is a core problem in ethics. Kantian ethics strongly defends the control principle, arguing that moral worth depends solely on the good will, independent of consequences. But as Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel argued, our actual moral practices—blaming and praising—inevitably involve luck. For example, we hold the successful assassin more blameworthy than the failed one, even if intent is equal. This paradox forces a choice: either reject the control principle (accepting that luck partly determines responsibility) or reject the consistency of our moral practices (seeking to purify them of luck). Neither option is comfortable. The debate connects to free will, the problem of evil, and legal standards of culpability, making it a vital concepts for understanding moral philosophy's limits and practical implications.