What is it about, say, circumstantial moral luck that makes it seem unfair?
Paper detalis:
Just write 4 discussion questions about the attached article. Make them interesting please. These are discussion questions for a class.
What is it about, say, circumstantial moral luck that makes it seem unfair? One answer
is that it is just unfair if A is blameworthy for an act when others would (or probably
would) have done the same under the same circumstances. But this doesn’t seem to get
to the heart of the matter. Why does this bother us?
Perhaps we can learn from a case that lacks apparent unfairness. Suppose that A is
in a position where she is very likely to steal a bicycle. (It’s not that she would steal; it’s
just that she would probably steal.) And suppose that B is in a position where she is
equally likely to steal a phone. If their situations were reversed, B would be very
likely to steal the bicycle and vice versa. And suppose that stealing the bicycle and stealing the phone are equally bad. As it happens, A resists temptation and refrains from
stealing. But B steals. It does not seem unfair that B alone is blameworthy, despite
the fact that A would very probably have done the same in B’s circumstances. I
suggest that it is because A and B faced equally difficult challenges. Neither of them
was given an unfair advantage over the other. They had (for all that I have said)
equal moral opportunity
