I disagree, you can't call it bad luck when it was just plain negligence. If you are told you can infect others, you are told to stay at home, you are told that old people are at higher risk, you...
After all, it was just bad luck things turned out the way they did for Ulla. [...]
Perhaps we should face up to the fact that the world just isn’t fair and that we have to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, even when they’re beyond our control.
I disagree, you can't call it bad luck when it was just plain negligence. If you are told you can infect others, you are told to stay at home, you are told that old people are at higher risk, you see on the news that people in care homes are getting infected and dying in mass, and you still decide to go you can't call it bad luck, you just were very very irresponsible and the consequences weren't beyond your control. The conclusion of the article is based on this flawed view and argues in favor of a "moral luck."
The problem is that it's difficult to treat all forms of negligence uniformly based on what might have happened. You can say negligence is bad, but how bad is it? What should the penalty be?...
The problem is that it's difficult to treat all forms of negligence uniformly based on what might have happened. You can say negligence is bad, but how bad is it? What should the penalty be?
Another example: one drunk driver gets home safely and they other gets into an accident and kills someone. The penalties for drunk driving can be pretty high, but not as high as manslaughter. Should they be?
Why must the goal be penalization, why can't the goal be reform? It's perfectly reasonable to have a response which isn't uniform because its both impossible to accurately measure intent and if...
penalties
Why must the goal be penalization, why can't the goal be reform?
It's perfectly reasonable to have a response which isn't uniform because its both impossible to accurately measure intent and if you wish to be uniform in response you'd need to either apply maximum or minimum force in order to equally treat all and I'm not comfortable with a society which chooses to act in extremes of that nature when the real world is much more complicated than that.
It's a concrete way of thinking about it, but if you prefer a utilitarian approach, you could think about how costly people should consider it to break a rule. Ultimately, people have to decide...
It's a concrete way of thinking about it, but if you prefer a utilitarian approach, you could think about how costly people should consider it to break a rule. Ultimately, people have to decide whether to follow the rules and some are more important than others.
On the other hand, a theoretical advantage of punishment for what really happens is that it encourages people to think about the real risks they are running, even if there is no specific rule against it. Although, I'm not sure I buy that since, as we've seen this year, most people aren't good at assessing risks.
I agree with @Gaywallet, I couldn't have written a better response than theirs. But I would like to add that in our current system that penalizes people there are two kinds of penalties: one for...
I agree with @Gaywallet, I couldn't have written a better response than theirs. But I would like to add that in our current system that penalizes people there are two kinds of penalties: one for intent and one for actions and consequences. That is why while both were drunk driving the one that committed manslaughter gets a higher penalty. The same logic applies to both negligence examples in the article, one could have had consequences, the other one did have them.
I disagree, you can't call it bad luck when it was just plain negligence. If you are told you can infect others, you are told to stay at home, you are told that old people are at higher risk, you see on the news that people in care homes are getting infected and dying in mass, and you still decide to go you can't call it bad luck, you just were very very irresponsible and the consequences weren't beyond your control. The conclusion of the article is based on this flawed view and argues in favor of a "moral luck."
The problem is that it's difficult to treat all forms of negligence uniformly based on what might have happened. You can say negligence is bad, but how bad is it? What should the penalty be?
Another example: one drunk driver gets home safely and they other gets into an accident and kills someone. The penalties for drunk driving can be pretty high, but not as high as manslaughter. Should they be?
Why must the goal be penalization, why can't the goal be reform?
It's perfectly reasonable to have a response which isn't uniform because its both impossible to accurately measure intent and if you wish to be uniform in response you'd need to either apply maximum or minimum force in order to equally treat all and I'm not comfortable with a society which chooses to act in extremes of that nature when the real world is much more complicated than that.
It's a concrete way of thinking about it, but if you prefer a utilitarian approach, you could think about how costly people should consider it to break a rule. Ultimately, people have to decide whether to follow the rules and some are more important than others.
On the other hand, a theoretical advantage of punishment for what really happens is that it encourages people to think about the real risks they are running, even if there is no specific rule against it. Although, I'm not sure I buy that since, as we've seen this year, most people aren't good at assessing risks.
I agree with @Gaywallet, I couldn't have written a better response than theirs. But I would like to add that in our current system that penalizes people there are two kinds of penalties: one for intent and one for actions and consequences. That is why while both were drunk driving the one that committed manslaughter gets a higher penalty. The same logic applies to both negligence examples in the article, one could have had consequences, the other one did have them.
Yes, our legal system does that, but the philosophical question is whether it's right to do that.
Outline version (anty-paywall): https://outline.com/ynHBtq