Kant On Moral Luck And Moral Judgement

Moral luck is one of the heated debates in contemporary ethics fields.Based on Kant’s account of good will and transcendental freedom,Kant is widely regarded as holding a position that rejects moral luck and has been criticized for this by those who believe moral luck is necessary and unavoidable,such as Nagel.The problem with Nagel’s argument for moral luck is that,first,he does not explicitly realize that there are multiple types and levels of moral judgment;second,he explains the concept of control as unrestricted control,thus expanding the scope of moral luck and confusing moral luck with moral responsibility and the issue of free will.Based on these,his explanation and criticism of Kant’s position are partly based on an inadequate understanding of moral luck,and in fact there is a certain consistency between Nagel’s and Kant’s understanding of morality.From Kant’s view,moral judgment are divided into three levels: judgment of moral value,judgment by conscience and judgment of merit,the first two of which are judgments of the moral agent about herself,respectively shows the moral perfection of the moral agent and the self-relations within reason,which are immune to luck;judgment of merit,on the other hand,are related to praise and blame through the theory of imputation,and judgments of merit have differences in degree,which partly depend on the consequences of actions,in the sense that judgment of merit is effected by resultant luck.