Thomas Nagel, an American philosopher asks whether or not luck has a moral bearing on our actions.
In an argumentative paper, what would be an objection and response to Thomas Nagel's argument as presented in his article "Moral Luck"?
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.
In this paper, Thomas Nagel's argument that luck has a moral significance will be examined. The philosophical question Nagel asks is whether or not luck has a moral bearing on our actions. Im-manuel Kant dealt with the problem of moral luck, but he said that luck has no bearing on the morality of a person’s action, whether it turns out well or badly. In this essay, Kant’s view repre-sents the objection to Nagel’s view. Nagel, an American professor of Philosophy, tries to unsettle Kant’s reasonable view in his essay “Moral Luck” published in the 1970s. In the essay, Nagel gives an illustration of the moral problem and examines the moral reasoning behind luck. How responsible are we for our moral choices, and does it make a difference if a good outcome comes out of a bad choice, or conversely, a bad outcome out of a good choice? Nagel sets out to demonstrate four ways “in which the natural objects of moral assessment are disturbingly subject to luck.”...
This is only a preview of the solution. Please use the purchase button to see the entire solution