Comparison Of Gauguin's Intrinsic And Extrinsic Luck
1) I think that Bernard Williams refers to moral luck as when someone has the ability to possess moral judgment on a subject, but there are many things that are outside of the individuals control about that moral judgment that make one morally good or bad. For example, if one is doing something morally correct, but somehow, that morally correct action or subject turned out to have good or bad consequences would be considered moral luck if it turned out to be the right or wrong decision. Basically, luck can make a moral difference. Intrinsic luck is the luck that comes from the action at hand, while extrinsic luck comes from outside the action at hand. Williams describes intrinsic and extrinsic luck based on the story of Gauguin. Gauguin’s intrinsic
…show more content…
Kant suggests that a good action is not good because of its outcome, what it accomplishes, or the effect it has on a given situation. It is good because it is good in itself or the action itself is particularly the right thing to do. According to Williams, our decisions are dependent on the outcome of the situation, whether one is successful or unsuccessful. He thinks that a decision will only be justified or seen as morally good, if the outcome was successful. The problem that arises, according to Williams, from Kant’s perspective on moral luck is that everyone seems to be devoted to the idea that everyone is morally determined by elements that only depend on what is under our control. Williams suggests that there are many cases in which our morality is determined by things that depend on elements outside of our control. Basically, it is impossible to determine if someone or something is moral if we are only dependent on what is under our control. I agree with Kant because if a decision to do something is right and good in itself, not just for oneself but for others too, then that decision cannot be made wrong by elements outside of our control. Those elements we cannot predict because we cannot see the future, therefore, if a decision is made in the right light of things, given what is known at the time of decision making, then I believe it is
Kant suggests that a good action is not good because of its outcome, what it accomplishes, or the effect it has on a given situation. It is good because it is good in itself or the action itself is particularly the right thing to do. According to Williams, our decisions are dependent on the outcome of the situation, whether one is successful or unsuccessful. He thinks that a decision will only be justified or seen as morally good, if the outcome was successful. The problem that arises, according to Williams, from Kant’s perspective on moral luck is that everyone seems to be devoted to the idea that everyone is morally determined by elements that only depend on what is under our control. Williams suggests that there are many cases in which our morality is determined by things that depend on elements outside of our control. Basically, it is impossible to determine if someone or something is moral if we are only dependent on what is under our control. I agree with Kant because if a decision to do something is right and good in itself, not just for oneself but for others too, then that decision cannot be made wrong by elements outside of our control. Those elements we cannot predict because we cannot see the future, therefore, if a decision is made in the right light of things, given what is known at the time of decision making, then I believe it is