This is a 16 page philosophy paper that I did last semester for a graduate course in ethics. It deals with the (relatively new) ethical problem called moral luck. Although I defend what I believe is a traditional conception of morality that is wholly compatible with Christianity, I do discuss and give weight to a certain form of moral skepticism. If reading about moral points of view other than the Christian bothers you, then do not read this paper.
Any comments/discussion would be most welcome!
The Truth About Consequences
Moral Luck
4 posts •
Page 1 of 1
-
TheSubtleDoctor - Posts: 1838
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:48 am
- Location: Region 1
-
TheSubtleDoctor - Posts: 1838
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:48 am
- Location: Region 1
Interesting. I've never heard of moral luck. How does Nagel define morality and in what ways does it differ from the traditional Christian view of morality? (i.e. "where the heart is" or "intentionality")
-
Mr. SmartyPants - Posts: 12541
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:00 am
Attachment!!!
I have attached the file, since the links don't work.
To MSP:
1.) Nagel's definition of morality is decidedly modern in its formulation. Basically, he thinks of it in terms of obligation, rather than as a sort of holistic conception of the good life, as the ancients did, i.e. one ought to respect life by not killing that guy. But he doesn't really go into this b/c...
2.) Specific moral systems are not at issue in either Nagel's or my paper. My paper deals with first order moral questions (not is this or that right or wrong, but is there such a thing as morality). The key issue at play in the moral luck literature is whether or not true moral judgments are possible given the fact that circumstances a,b,c, surrounding human action are a matter of luck.
3.) Nagel's conclusions about morality are different from traditional/Christian morality b/c he is a moral skeptic. We should. based an arguments x,y,z, believe that there is no such thing as morality.
4.) I think that traditional/Christian morality consists of more than intentionality. Abelard's intention-based ethic was such a novel idea in the 12th century precisely because no one in Christendom had ever expressed it before. I am not saying that intentionality is irrelevant to Christian morality but that consequences play as much of an important role as intentions.
That said, now that the attachment works...enjoy the paper!
To MSP:
1.) Nagel's definition of morality is decidedly modern in its formulation. Basically, he thinks of it in terms of obligation, rather than as a sort of holistic conception of the good life, as the ancients did, i.e. one ought to respect life by not killing that guy. But he doesn't really go into this b/c...
2.) Specific moral systems are not at issue in either Nagel's or my paper. My paper deals with first order moral questions (not is this or that right or wrong, but is there such a thing as morality). The key issue at play in the moral luck literature is whether or not true moral judgments are possible given the fact that circumstances a,b,c, surrounding human action are a matter of luck.
3.) Nagel's conclusions about morality are different from traditional/Christian morality b/c he is a moral skeptic. We should. based an arguments x,y,z, believe that there is no such thing as morality.
4.) I think that traditional/Christian morality consists of more than intentionality. Abelard's intention-based ethic was such a novel idea in the 12th century precisely because no one in Christendom had ever expressed it before. I am not saying that intentionality is irrelevant to Christian morality but that consequences play as much of an important role as intentions.
That said, now that the attachment works...enjoy the paper!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
TheSubtleDoctor - Posts: 1838
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:48 am
- Location: Region 1
4 posts •
Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 113 guests