Originally Posted By: sini
For people still capable of independent thought:

There is a concept of Moral Luck. Example demonstrating moral luck - you put one bullet into a revolver, spin it, point at someone and pull the trigger.

Outcome A: Revolver fires, killing your target.
Outcome B: Revolver does not fire, your target lives.

If you analyze outcomes on moral level, most people would agree that A is more morally wrong than B. At the same time you have to admit that chain of events was exactly the same, and actions taken were the same.

The problem is that moral judgments assigned based on factors under our control, but it is possible to demonstrate that in large number of particular cases we judge people for things that are not entirely in their control.

Serious question:
I've always just called this luck not "moral luck." What is the reasoning behind applying the term moral to this scenario?

FYI it is never morally justifiable to "play" with someone's life as suggested in your scenario. Whether you kill the person or not, putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger is not something to be done for kicks. Because the chance exists (a relatively large one at that) to randomly take a life for no reason, the actions, regardless of outcome, are immoral.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]