Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 169, Issue 2, pp 313–332 | Cite as

Luck, blame, and desert

  • Michael Cholbi
Article

Abstract

T.M. Scanlon has recently proposed what I term a ‘double attitude’ account of blame, wherein blame is the revision of one’s attitudes in light of another person’s conduct, conduct that we believe reveals that the individual lacks the normative attitudes we judge essential to our relationship with her. Scanlon proposes that this account justifies differences in blame that in turn reflect differences in outcome luck. Here I argue that although the double attitude account can justify blame’s being sensitive to outcome luck, it cannot justify allocating blame differently when agents with the same attitudes differ only with respect to the luck-based outcomes of their actions. However, Scanlon’s own contractualist theory of morality can be invoked to show that the double attitude account is compatible with blame-based sanctions (e.g., compensation mandated when negligence or reckless result in harm) being sensitive to outcome luck. The resultant view of blame and luck remains desert-based while making sense of the common intuition that differences in outcome luck can matter to how lucky and unlucky individuals are justifiably treated.

Keywords

Moral luck Blame Desert Compensation Negligence and recklessness T.M. Scanlon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

A number of colleagues provided valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article, including David Adams, Carl Cranor, John Davis, Kory de Clark, Margaret Gilbert, Aaron James, Steve Munzer, Peter Ross, Michael Smith, and Rivka Weinberg. I also gratefully acknowledge the feedback of an anonymous Philosophical Studies reviewer.

References

  1. Alexander, L., & Kessler Ferzan, K. (2009). Crime and culpability: A theory of criminal law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Darwall, S. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Einav, L., Finkelstein, A., Pascu, I., & Cullen, M. (2012). How general are risk preferences? Choices under uncertainty in different domains. American Economic Review, 102, 2606–2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jensen, H. (1984). Morality and luck. Philosophy, 59(229), 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Latus, A. (2000). Moral and epistemic luck. Journal of Philosophical Research, 25, 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nagel, T. (1979). Moral luck. In Mortal questions (pp. 24–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Nicholson, N., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Soane, E., & Willman, P. (2001) Risk propensity and personality. London Business School Working Papers. http://www.london.edu/facultyandresearch/research/docs/risk.ps.pdf, Retrieved July 31, 2013.
  8. Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Scanlon, T. M. (2008). Moral dimensions: Meaning, permissibility, and blame. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Strawson, P. F. (1974) Freedom and resentment. In Freedom and resentment and other essays (pp. 1–29). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  11. Thomson, J. J. (1993). Morality and back luck. In D. Statman (Ed.), Moral luck (pp. 195–216). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Waldron, J. (1995). Moments of carelessness and massive loss. In D. Owen (Ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (pp. 387–408). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Walen, A. (2010). Crime, culpability, and moral luck. Law and Philosophy, 29, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Weber, E. U., Blais, A., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Sanctional Decision Making, 15, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State Polytechnic University, PomonaPomonaUSA

Personalised recommendations