Thomas Nagel`s Moral Luck essay 
Introduction
Philosophers explain their positions about the world, relation between people and this world, self-relation, and people’s attitude towards each other. In his essay “Moral Luck”, Thomas Nagel explains his position concerning the same issues. The main topic of his essay is that human moral goodness and badness depend on moral luck, and not only on their good or bad will. In other words, Nagel is challenging Kant’s concept of moral judgment, and that is why it is an important issue. In this paper I will argue about the use of moral luck as the sole concept in judging a person’s act. In the following sections I will present a brief description of the key points of Nagel’s essay, analysis of moral assessment concept based on my viewpoint, and conclusion.
Reconstruction
In this section I will present a brief description of the key features of Thomas Nagel’s essay “Moral Luck”. Nagel opens his essay describing Kant’s notion of moral judgment. Kant opposed the idea of use of good or bad luck in moral judgment of a person. Instead, he proposed to use the concept of good and bad will. Nagel dismisses Kant’s theory and establishes a hypothesis, according to which one cannot be morally assessed for what is not his/her fault since human acts are subject to external controls. He questions why a person should be assessed based on his/her actions, while good or bad actions are governed by external controls irrespective of good or bad will of the person. Nagel cites different examples in support of his moral luck concept. He further defines four categories of moral luck: circumstantial, resultant, casual, and constitutive. Then, Nagel cites an example of circumstantial luck: a person became morally judged as bad because he was an officer of Nazi concentration camp. However, the same person could have led a pleasant life, if Nazis had not come to power. At the same time, a person who left Germany and enjoyed a peaceful life in Argentina before the break of WWII and never returned back could have become a concentration camp officer. Another example used by Nagel explains that people are apt to pass different judgments for the same bad will when one achieves the goal and someone else does not achieve it. Regarding casual luck, he asserts that nothing in the world is under human control, which makes it impossible to render moral assessment of any person. In defining constitutive luck, Nagel says that human characters result from random combination of genetics and events. Hence, people are not responsible for their acts; moral luck directs them. He, however, agrees that it is impossible to understand moral luck without help of the internal conception of agency that is connected with moral attitudes. Nagel does not contribute negligence to moral luck. He points out that even though people make their judgment based on the outcome, certain acts are so bad and risky that even positive outcomes cannot justify them. This is how he defines negligence and its outcome.
Evaluation
In this section I will discuss my views on moral luck concept. It is true that people often judge someone based only on one’s actions, and not on one’s personality. Describing resultant moral luck, Nagel points out that we punish the one whose bullet killed, but do not punish those whose bullet did not kill. Nagel does not support a thought that a criminal judgment carries a punishment in proportion to the victim’s loss. When the bullet did not kill anyone, there is no victim. However, both individuals are classified as morally bad persons. A good person will not shoot to kill another person. This is the basis of Kant’s theory. The same is with a reckless driver who kills a pedestrian while passing a red light. A morally good person will not violate traffic rules because he/she adheres to moral and legal codes of the community. One person became a Nazi officer at the concentration camp, while another one did not. According to Nagel, this is just a matter of circumstances. However, one’s acts do not always depend on circumstances. A very popular movie Schindler List shows the difference. Only a morally bad person would enjoy extinction of a specific human race when there is such an opportunity. On the other hand, a morally good person will try to help even endangering own life. Thus, for a morally bad person, circumstances are moral catalysts in fulfilling his/her bad will. Some acts are good in nature, but the object may not be able to accomplish it if moral luck does not favor him. In my opinion, Kant’s concept of good or bad will fused with Nagel’s concept of moral luck fully describe a person’s motive. Once the act and motive are joined together, a better judgment can be rendered. Talking about judgment, the existence of criminal, social, and historical judgments should not be forgotten. The fact that the judgments do not have an absolute metric should be remembered as well; it depends on the moral codes and approaches accepted by a society.
Conclusion
In this paper I argued that moral luck concept cannot be solely attributed to moral assessment of an object. Moral luck cannot be used as judgment metric. Moral assessment should be accorded based on good or bad will of a person. It is a catalyst for a person just like in a chemical reaction. Moral luck accelerates good or bad will and helps an object in accomplishing some acts.
