Quote:
FYI it is never morally justifiable to "play" with someone's life as suggested in your scenario.


Agreed, but you also have to admit that there are various level of morally wrong. You can't say that both stealing bread to feed a starving child and going on a killing spree are the same kinds of wrong.

As such, "play" and kill, and "play" and not kill would produce different wrong types.

Here is better example:

You stole money from your employer, but when you got home you had a change of heart.

Option A: You returned and put money back before anyone noticed.
Option B: On the way to return money you were arrested by police that was alerted about theft.



Originally Posted By: Kaotic

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


Moral luck is luck, but when applied to concept of morality it adds implications that we often assign moral judgment for something moral actors have very little control.

Moral judgment implies that moral actor intentionally did something, but in many situations this is not the case!

Last edited by sini; 01/12/13 08:12 AM.
[Linked Image]