The following text discusses ethics.
Moral luck challenges the assumption that moral responsibility should depend only on factors within our control. A drunk driver who kills a pedestrian seems more blameworthy than one who arrives home safely, though both made equally reckless decisions and only luck distinguished outcomes. The existence of moral luck disturbs intuitions: it seems unfair to hold people responsible for what they cannot control, yet we regularly do so. Philosophers remain divided on whether to revise our practices, revise our intuitions about control, or accept moral luck as an irreducible feature of moral life.
What is paradoxical about moral luck according to the text?
People never feel responsible for outcomes beyond their control
We hold people responsible for luck-based outcomes while believing responsibility should require control
Luck plays no role in moral evaluation
All philosophers agree on how to resolve this issue
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. It "seems unfair to hold people responsible for what they cannot control, yet we regularly do so"—a conflict between intuitions about control and actual practice.
- Evidence: Unfairness intuition vs. actual practice.
- Reasoning: Two incompatible commitments create paradox.
- Conclusion: We hold responsible for what's beyond control.
Choice A is incorrect because we do hold responsible for uncontrolled outcomes. Choice C is incorrect because luck clearly affects judgment (drunk driver example). Choice D is incorrect because "philosophers remain divided."