Thank you both for clarifying the position. I still think the term "moral luck" is a misnomer.

In each of these scenarios someone did something wrong or immoral. The only difference in them is the consequences. It is no less wrong to run a red light if you don't get a ticket than if you do. Killing someone as a consequence of you running the light is an additional act and judged independently of the traffic violation. i.e. you get a ticket for running the light, and jail time for the homicide. I don't understand the idea of considering these events the same.

The idea of interchanging morals and ethics is just semantics. The word moral is used in the definition of ethics, and ethical is given as a synonym for moral. If anything ethics is the more subjective of the two since most people can agree on what is right and wrong, but often differ on what is good and bad. I've always referenced ethics as more like unto law. As in, ethics are the codification of a set of morals, like definition 2.

Definition of MORAL
1
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Definition of ETHIC
1
plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2
a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
Originally Posted By: sini
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.
I agree

Originally Posted By: sini
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.
For me both of these are equally wrong or equally immoral, only the consequence for the wrong action is different.

Originally Posted By: sini
Moral judgment implies that moral actor intentionally did something, but in many situations this is not the case!
So, in Longshank's scenario the driver didn't intentionally kill a person. However, I don't hold that murderer (perhaps killer is a better word since murderer usually implies intent) in the same esteem I do a guy who beats his grandmother to death with a hammer. For the car driver, I feel sorry for him and the victim. For the asshole with a hammer, I think he should get the chair. That's moral judgement to me. One guy must pay for the consequences of his actions as prescribed by law, the other is a piece of shit who doesn't deserve to go on breathing.

Still not sure I'm understanding the nuance here.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]