The morality of luck

[ofd]

Suppose there are two drivers, John and Winston. John texts while driving and he hits a pedestrian, killing her. Winston also does that, but he has luck, nothing happens. Are both equally guilty? Is John more guilty because he had bad luck? Is Winston less guilty because he had good luck?

[RichardY]

@ofd I think there's a moral obligation if you have children and they're in the car to set an example, unless you don't like your children and you're frank with them.

In England I think there is something called "driving without due care and attention", so if caught I 'm guessing Winston would be guilIty. Morally guilty if he decided to take an unecessary risk and believed in morality. For the sake of a few minutes though could have avoided damage to his car and all the hassle.

[ofd]

Quote

In England I think there is something called "driving without due care and attention", so if caught I 'm guessing Winston would be guilIty. Morally guilty if he decided to take an unecessary risk and believed in morality. For the sake of a few minutes though could have avoided damage to his car and all the hassle.

Sure, but that does the morality of an action depend on circumstances? Both John and Winston did the same with different outcomes, how is their moral culpability different?

[MercurySunlight]

Let's look at this from a different perspective:

Suppose there are two pedestrians, Jane and Mary. Jane texts while walking and is hit by John, and is killed. Mary also texts while walking, but she has luck, and is not hit by either John nor Winston. Are both Jane and Mary equally guilty of carelessness regarding their own lives? Is Mary less guilty because she had good luck?

I guess the question for me would be: Is it moral to play the odds and count on luck in order to not cause the death of another or ourselves? 

[AllanN]

47 minutes ago, MercurySunlight said:

I guess the question for me would be: Is it moral to play the odds and count on luck in order to not cause the death of another or ourselves? 

The above I agree with to an extent, but I wouldn't use the word luck, which is belief (luck, the word used by the initial thread starter), chance would be my preferred word, but yeah, I'm probably being pedantic.

Although from a feminist pov both would be wrong because they're men, so in the case of Jane and Mary above, it would obviously be John's fault.  Their religion could also be a factor but that may involve intent, and the thread starter specified that there was no intent in both cases.

Both drivers were negligent because the task of driving, it is agreed, involves control of the vehicle at all times, so texting infers negligence.  Both drivers were therefore negligent.  Beyond that, negligence often has consequences.  The consequences of one driver's negligence resulted in catastrophe, and the other party's negligence did not.  Both drivers tempted catastrophe but only one driver caused it by a chance encounter, exacerbated by negligence.

The driver who hit the ped is more guilty, (as the thread starter asked) because the consequences of negligence can be many and varied.  The same driver could instead have hit a ped rapist chasing a woman and so saved her.  Would the question then have been: were the two drivers heroes for saving the women?  No, of course not.  Both were negligent, but the driver who saved the woman was lucky.

[RichardY]

11 hours ago, ofd said:

Sure, but that does the morality of an action depend on circumstances? Both John and Winston did the same with different outcomes, how is their moral culpability different?

I would say it's not.

[alt10]

John works hard and become rich
Winston works hard and remain poor
Which one has the strongest work ethic?

[Ronin_3000]

Both actions are morally equivalent.

I think the reason I am hesitant to conclude this is because of the statist system we live in. John is a murderer, but Winston is not even though their actions are the same. Murder is about the most evil thing you can do, but it's easy to think of things I've done that could've killed someone, but didn't. I've dropped things out of windows and hit people. If I was more unlucky then I'd be a murderer, but I'm just guilty of assault and property destruction.

I think this would be a good topic to talk to Stephan about. I want to hear what he thinks.

[Mole]

Consider this. Nobody can measure the chance of a circumstance objectively. We know for certain John his a pedestrian and Winston didn't. So if someone were going to claim that they are both just as culpable, they will need some objective way to measure chance. However, that seems completely impossible because chance depends completely on a person's subjective knowledge. For example, maybe Winston has incredibly good tracking skills and he may claim that he 'knew what he was doing'. How could you give evidence against that?

 

[RichardY]

On 6/4/2018 at 5:01 PM, Mole said:

Consider this. Nobody can measure the chance of a circumstance objectively. We know for certain John his a pedestrian and Winston didn't. So if someone were going to claim that they are both just as culpable, they will need some objective way to measure chance. However, that seems completely impossible because chance depends completely on a person's subjective knowledge. For example, maybe Winston has incredibly good tracking skills and he may claim that he 'knew what he was doing'. How could you give evidence against that?

Yeah I don't think chance enters into. I think beign "lucky" you didn't turn the pedestrian into pizza, is the wrong way of looking at it. Rather they should concentrate on the road. If a lightning bolt however hit a tree ( or deer bolted out at night), and the tree missed crushing your car, I guess you could say that was lucky. Not so much if the tree crushed someone else, unless it were a disliked motheringlaw or something. 

[ofd]

Quote

Consider this. Nobody can measure the chance of a circumstance objectively.

Well, you can't quantify the role of luck in absolute terms but you can in relative. Texting and driving is more dangerous for pedestrians than concentrating on the road. You can behave in a reckless way if you can't quantify exactly how reckless it is in the individual. But given the law of large numbers, reckless behaviour will cause bad outcomes for some, while others may be spared. The bad outcome itself isn't determined by morality but by sheer luck.