Abstract

Bernard Williams drew our attention to what might be wrong with denying the role of luck in our understanding of agency and responsibility. Susan Wolf and David Enoch, in separate works, have asked us to focus instead on what might be virtuous and valuable in embracing that role, and on how our institutions might assist us in that regard. They claim that the agent who ‘takes’ a responsibility that law or morality do not already assign to them may be displaying a special moral virtue or exercising a distinctive moral power. I raise some objections to Wolf’s and Enoch’s case for that claim, and query some of its purported institutional implications for tort law systems.

Highlights

  • Debates about moral luck have gripped the interest of tort theory because they promise insights into the conditions under which our institutions may require an agent to make repair for accidents or other harmful events.[1]

  • Bernard Williams drew our attention to what might be wrong with denying the role of luck in our understanding of agency and responsibility

  • They have argued that the agent who ‘takes’ a responsibility that the law or morality does not already assign to them may be displaying a special moral virtue or exercising a distinctive moral power, and they have accounted for that virtue or power in terms of the way taking responsibility enhances the agent’s sense of being-in-the-world

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Debates about moral luck have gripped the interest of tort theory because they promise insights into the conditions under which our institutions may require an agent to make repair for accidents or other harmful events.[1] It seems beyond dispute, and I will assume that it is, that our institutions may do this only when the accident is connected to that person’s agency in the appropriate way. Arguments about moral luck matter for tort law precisely because they help us think about what counts as an appropriate connection between an action (or event) and an agent in relation to questions of responsibility for repair. My aim in this paper is to trace and discuss a particular line of thought about luck and agency, and the significance of their relationship between the two for the justification of systems of tort liability

Voyiakis
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.