Moral luck

Moral luck is a cognitive bias where individuals unfairly judge the moral value of an action based on its outcome rather than the intent behind it. This bias challenges the traditional notion of morality, which usually aims to assess actions based solely on the agent's intentions and ethical principles.

How it works

Moral luck occurs when external factors beyond an individual's control affect the moral judgement of their actions. If two people perform the same action with the same intent, but differing outcomes due to circumstances outside their control, moral luck leads to them being judged differently. The essence of this bias lies in the human tendency to draw meaning from actions based on their results, projecting these interpretations both retrospectively and prospectively.

Examples

• Consider two drivers, each engaging in the risky behavior of texting while driving. One driver causes a major accident with severe consequences, while the other driver arrives at their destination safely without incident. The first driver is likely to face severe moral judgment due to the outcome, despite both having the same negligent intent.
• In the workplace, an employee who takes a gamble on a business decision may be lauded as a visionary if it succeeds but condemned as reckless if it fails, even though the decision-making process was identical in both scenarios.

Consequences

Moral luck can lead to unfair assessments and accountability, skewing justice systems, workplace evaluations, and personal relationships. It introduces inconsistencies in moral and legal judgments, potentially punishing people disproportionately or absolving them based on outcomes rather than intention or effort.

Counteracting

Counteracting moral luck involves fostering awareness of the bias and applying principles of accountability that focus on intent and process rather than outcome. Training in ethical decision-making can help distinguish intention from result. Encouraging critical thinking and reflective practices also aids in resisting this bias.

Critiques

Critics argue that fully eliminating moral luck from moral judgments undermines accountability for results and may lead to moral permissiveness. They also point out that consequences are an inherent part of moral consideration in the real world. Furthermore, some philosophers suggest that outcomes matter significantly in developing ethical and legal frameworks.

Fields of Impact

Also known as

Relevant Research

• Moral luck and the law

  Dana K. Nelkin (2008)

  Philosophy Compass

• On luck and responsibility

  Bernard Williams (1981)

  Philosophical Papers 1971–1980

• Moral luck: A partial map

  Thomas Nagel (1979)

  Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes