A Defense of the Luck Pincer: Why Luck (Still) Undermines Moral Responsibility

Journel of Information Ethic 28 (1):51-72 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In the paper, I defend the skeptical view that no one is ever morally responsible in the basic desert sense since luck universally undermines responsibility-level control. I begin in Section 1 by defining a number of different varieties of luck and examining their relevance to moral responsibility. I then turn, in Section 2, to outlining and defending what I consider to be the best argument for the skeptical view--the luck pincer (Levy 2011). I conclude in Section 3 by addressing Robert Hartman's (2017) numerous objections to the luck pincer. I argue that the luck pincer emerges unscathed and the pervasiveness of luck (still) undermines moral responsibility.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2019-07-18
Latest version: 2 (2019-07-18)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
302 ( #14,862 of 50,123 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
88 ( #5,829 of 50,123 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.