The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central If I Were the Devil

I know that people, myself included, are not rational. I try to understand this irrationality so I can avoid it or use it to my advantage. I know that world and our lives are largely random, unfair and that any moment I can go rags from riches and not see it coming. I have been poor, and I have lived in a places where freedoms don't exist - as such I know privilege you take for granted is anything but.

My plan is working toward more fair society, because I know how fleeting my place at the top is and I can see and remember what it is like to be at the bottom.

You still haven't said how you get there. Additionally, defining your "fair society" is no different from defining a moral society.

How would I get there? Clearly, with more Jesus!

You know, no one has said anything about religion or Jesus, except you...

You've still not answered.

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.

You should read up on "moral hazard". Ron Paul talks about this quite a bit.

I am familiar with the concept, it is adequately covered by "buggy morals" explanation.

Fundamental problem with all these negative outcomes is that moral agents perceive their own actions as morally-neutral. They don't see themselves as "bad people" by rationalizing their actions away.

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.

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.





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!

Sini's "Moral Luck" example is not the best, because the action is inherently immoral in most people's mind (i.e. Playing Russion Roulette).

The classic example is:

You & I both run a red light, I get pulled over & receive a ticket for my action. You happen to strike & kill a pedestrian who though it was safe to cross the street. You are charged with manslaughter.

Our actions were exactly the same, we both ran a red light ... but the outcomes & punishments were very different.

Most people will view your action as "less moral" than mine, because of the outcome ... even though, as a matter of fact, our actions were identical ... we both ran a red light & both received punishment for our actions.

Thus the idea of "Moral Luck". Seems, I had it in this scenario & you did not ... of course the pedestrian happened to be very unlucky as well.

My suggestion is that when engaging in a conversations such as this, with someone who has with no religous belief, use the term "Ethics" rather than "Morals" ... describe things as "Unethical" rather than "Immoral". These are terms they can relate to & neutralizes the conversation from all that is "God", or "Jesus" related ... most of the time, without them even realizing it.

After all, Ethics, is just a secular term for the age-old concept of Morals. It can be quite comical & I often crack myself up interchanging the two terms depending on who I am talking to.