PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: The Problem of Moral Luck [HD]

74문장 100% 한국어 번역 6명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
2 영상보기
영어 to
한국어
2단 보기 1단 보기
번역 0%

PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: The Problem of Moral Luck [HD]발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

(intro music) Hi! My name is Victor Kumar, and I'm a post-doctoral fellow in the philosophy department at the University of Michigan.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

In this video, I'm going to talk to you about moral luck.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Imagine that you've been entrusted with the care of a friend's child.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You're preparing to drive the child back to her parents' house, but you're distracted for a moment, and you neglect to secure her safely in her car seat.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Unfortunately, on the way home, you're hit by another driver and the child is gravely injured.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

How should you feel?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Well, intense guilt and remorse would be natural.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

How should the child's parents, your friends, react towards you?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Very likely, with anger and severe blame.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Now imagine that I'm in almost exactly the same situation as you.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

I've also been entrusted with the care of a friend's child, and I too neglect to secure her safely in her car seat.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Fortunately, however, I manage to drive home safely.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's only once I pull into the driveway that I realize my terrible mistake.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

How should I feel in this situation?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Well, no doubt, I should feel some guilt and remorse.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But it seems unreasonable to feel quite so much as you feel in your situation.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If the child's parents were to find out about my mistake, they would be angry, and they would blame me for my negligence.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But it wouldn't make sense for them to react as severely towards me as your friends react towards you.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Cases like this illustrate the problem of moral luck.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The problem is that it seems irrational to have different reactions to these two cases.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Both you and I were negligent, and we were negligent in precisely the same way.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The fact that your negligence led to tragedy, and mine didn't, was just a matter of luck.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And luck, it seems, can't affect our levels of moral responsibility.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The problem of moral luck arises out of a clash between intuitive reactions to cases and a general principle of moral responsibility, often called the "control condition."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The control condition says that you are responsible only for what's under your control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For example, suppose I'm angry with you because I think you've treated me unfairly.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But once I realize you had no choice, that someone else made the decision, it seems like I should excuse you.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The control condition captures this.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The control condition implies that two people can't differ in their level of moral responsibility only because of facts beyond their control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

However, we frequently, consistently, and quite plausibly hold people responsible on the basis of factors beyond their control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

If we accept the control condition, then it seems we're being inconsistent.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, the problem of moral luck reflects a deep tension among our moral commitments.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

One type of moral luck is called "resultant moral luck."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Two people perform the same action, but seem to be responsible to different degrees solely because of subsequent events that are outside of their control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Resultant luck arises in cases of negligence, like the case of the car accident and the injured child.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But it also arises in cases of intentional wrongdoing.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Imagine that John and Harry both attack people.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But just because of the different ways their victims happen to fall onto the ground, John is guilty of manslaughter and Harry is guilty only of assault.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Another type of moral luck is called "circumstantial moral luck."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Two identical people perform different actions and seem to be morally responsible to different degrees, even though the reason they acted differently was that they just so happened to find themselves in different circumstances.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Marie, let's imagine, commits a crime of passion.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Jane doesn't, but only because she luckily wasn't provoked.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Marie is, therefore, blameworthy in a way that Jane isn't, but only due to luck.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

A third type of moral luck is called "constitutive moral luck."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Our character traits and motivations are largely due to genetic and environmental conditions utterly beyond our control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Amy is kind, Brian is cruel, Naomi is courageous, Paul is cowardly.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

These traits lead each of them to act differently when faced with moral choices, and so we praise and blame them ultimately on the basis of things that are not up to them.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Now that we've gotten clear about the problem of moral luck, it's time to ask whether there's any solution to the problem.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

On the one hand, we might be skeptics about moral luck.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We might stick with our commitment to the control condition and insist that we should never praise or blame others purely on the basis of facts beyond their control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Skepticism is a difficult position to live up to.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

To see this, think back to the case of the careless drivers.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It seems like an overreaction for me to blame myself as if tragedy occurred.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Every caregiver acts in ways that might have had tragic results for children in their care but for luck.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

On the other hand, you shouldn't let yourself off.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Imagine telling your friends that you're sorry that their child was hurt, but that they shouldn't feel more than a twinge of blame towards you.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

This seems monstrous.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Some skeptics think that there isn't really a conflict between the control condition and our intuitions about cases.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

They adopt what's called the "epistemic view."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

According to the epistemic view, the outcomes of our actions are a key source of evidence about what goes on in our heads.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, the reason we blame a murderer more than someone who committed only attempted murder is that it is more likely that he had homicidal intentions.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

One problem for the epistemic view, however, is that it doesn't seem to square with our intuitions.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Recall again our cases of negligence.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You and I were both equally careless with the children we were supposed to look after, but you seem genuinely more blameworthy than me.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Another main solution to the problem of moral luck is to reject the control condition, and accept responsibility for things outside of our control.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But then, what general moral theory or moral principle, if not the control condition, explains why we should allow luck to influence ascriptions of responsibility?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

One possibility is that the point of praise and blame is not just to give people what they deserve, but also to influence their future behavior,발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

and it may be more effective to blame and punish people based on the lucky or unlucky outcomes of their actions, rather than their intentions.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

However, can we live with such crude manipulation in our interpersonal lives?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Or does this throw morality into doubt?발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

We either have to make big changes to our moral lives, or we have to give up the control condition.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

But both possibilities raise very difficult philosophical questions.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Anyone who is gripped by the problem of moral luck must wrestle with these questions.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top