Thesis: The philosophy of Moral Luck is an influential idea depicted from the moral philosophy of Kantians Theory, which is on “ Moral Judgment”. However, both these philosophies are originally expressed in the work of Bernard William, where Thomas Nagel presented his philosophy of Moral Luck. According to Nagel, when something happens by an individual that is not in his control and it effects some other individual, he should not judged impersonally but by personal moral judgment. At the same time, personal institutions should be given place to play its role while moral judgment as luck plays a very important role to the factors or events done when it is beyond the control of human being.

Thomas Nagel and Moral Luck
The philosophy of moral luck presented by Nagel is basically an inspiration taken from the idea of Kant about the relationship bwteen luck and morality. However, his article is a reply to William’s paper on the same topic.
Therefore, Nagel argues that when things, events or certain factors influence us, which are basically resulted out of an individual act that is beyound his control, in such circumstances we should not directly blame that very individual for harming the other individual. Basically he means that individuals are not morally responsible for the things and acts done, which are not in their control and harms some other individual. At the same time he also explains that individuals should ne be held responsible for actions and events that occur around them, which are beyound their control.

On the other hand he also mainatains that depending upon the very characteristic nature of the factors and events which are categorize as an out come of moral luck could be at the same time good and bad. Therefore, he means that for some people moral luck results into positve implications while some people experience bad luck. At the same time he also beieves that moral intitutions also play a very important role when we are to creae any moral judgment. Generally people develop their judgments based on the events and factors happening at that very moment or location, where people do not consider moral intitutions as important part of building any judgment regarding a situation whereby an individual does something which was beyond his control. Therefore, he also defends that along moral luck, moral intitutions should be taken seriously while building any judgment.

However, he further argues that moral luck and moral intitutions should be divided into impersonal morality and personal morality. Both these elements motivates an individual towards the feeling of commitment towards an action. So individuals should always build their personal view point in regarding to any factor or event specifically with his personal judgments inspite of focusing on impersonal judgments. In this way intitutions and moral luck will automatically be a aprt of moral judgment. Basically this philosphy of Nagel is an influence drawn from Kantian Theory of moral luck given by Kant. On the other hand he also believes that in order to achieve honesty in human life and with human life which is not easy with out any importunate objectivity or overwhelming force to demolish the impersonal view points in specific relation to the question of being morally right to decide by personal means.

Therefore, he strongly believes that one should not be held responsible for events and actions, which occur beyond a person’s control. At the same time he also maintains that at times, certain event happens by an individual, which is affecting some other individual and not in his control that are resulted out of some previous circumstances. Even though he also believes that circumstances has nothing to do with moral luck and events happening beyond our control should always be judged by personal intuitions and moral luck.

Moreover, Nagel divided moral luck into 4 fundamental categories. These include resultant luck, circumstantial luck, constitutive luck and causal luck. However, he believes that when things turn out themseleves by luck is resultant luck. For instance something happens due to negligance and beyound the contrl of an individual harms some other individual, it is identified as resultant of moral luck. Where by circumstantial luck he means that certain circumstances in which an individual finds himself. On the other hand he identifies constitutive moral luck as a luck in which one inherits certain traits of actions from either genes or other environmental influences and his actions harm some other individual though such action was not in his control. A very simple example used by Nagel to support this aspect of moral luck is blaming some one for being self righteous or coward in behavior is basically due to constitutive moral luck. Where he relates causal luck with the antededentiary circumstances, which is basically the classic problem of free will. Though he also maintains that freedom is usually thought to be very important for moral responsibility however, one cannot be morally responsible for his willingness.