Responsabilidad y suerte moral: Circunstancias y consecuencias de la acción

Resumen

"Moral luck" alludes to the fact of being responsible for things over which we have no control. Typically, we have neither (total) control over the consequences of our acts of will nor over the circumstances in which these acts are performed. The Kantian thesis on moral responsibility claims that every kind of moral luck should be eliminated from our moral language and practice. In the case of consequences, this aim does not seem impossible. But circumstances are more difficult to avoid beca use the act of will itself has to be performed within the framework of circumstances that the agent cannot control at all, and these circumstances will dramatically bear on his/her responsibility. Therefore, the following anti-Kantian (or pro-moral luck) argument can be construed. Either we reject circumstantial luck or we accept it. If we reject it, then every attribution of responsibility becomes impossible (because, as I have said, every action is performed in sorne uncontrollable circumstances). If we accept it, then we no longer have a good argument against consequential luck, the core of the Kantian rejection of moral luck. In this paper, I defend the Kantian position from this argument, claiming that both kinds of moral luck are relevantly different. This will, nevertheless, lead to a revision of the scope of our judgments of responsibility. They should be interpreted as comparative judgments: We compare how someone acted with how others (or we) would act in identical (or similar) circumstances.