Moral luck
Moral luck is a cognitive bias where individuals unfairly judge the moral value of an action based on its outcome rather than the intent behind it. This bias challenges the traditional notion of morality, which usually aims to assess actions based solely on the agent's intentions and ethical principles.
How it works
Moral luck occurs when external factors beyond an individual's control affect the moral judgement of their actions. If two people perform the same action with the same intent, but differing outcomes due to circumstances outside their control, moral luck leads to them being judged differently. The essence of this bias lies in the human tendency to draw meaning from actions based on their results, projecting these interpretations both retrospectively and prospectively.
Examples
- Consider two drivers, each engaging in the risky behavior of texting while driving. One driver causes a major accident with severe consequences, while the other driver arrives at their destination safely without incident. The first driver is likely to face severe moral judgment due to the outcome, despite both having the same negligent intent.
- In the workplace, an employee who takes a gamble on a business decision may be lauded as a visionary if it succeeds but condemned as reckless if it fails, even though the decision-making process was identical in both scenarios.
Consequences
Moral luck can lead to unfair assessments and accountability, skewing justice systems, workplace evaluations, and personal relationships. It introduces inconsistencies in moral and legal judgments, potentially punishing people disproportionately or absolving them based on outcomes rather than intention or effort.
Counteracting
Counteracting moral luck involves fostering awareness of the bias and applying principles of accountability that focus on intent and process rather than outcome. Training in ethical decision-making can help distinguish intention from result. Encouraging critical thinking and reflective practices also aids in resisting this bias.
Critiques
Critics argue that fully eliminating moral luck from moral judgments undermines accountability for results and may lead to moral permissiveness. They also point out that consequences are an inherent part of moral consideration in the real world. Furthermore, some philosophers suggest that outcomes matter significantly in developing ethical and legal frameworks.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Moral luck and the law
Dana K. Nelkin (2008)
Philosophy Compass
On luck and responsibility
Bernard Williams (1981)
Philosophical Papers 1971–1980
Moral luck: A partial map
Thomas Nagel (1979)
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes
Recommended Books
Thinking, Fast and Slow
Daniel Kahneman
2011
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, Amos Tversky
1982
Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment
Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, Cass R. Sunstein
2021
The Righteous Mind
Jonathan Haidt
2012
Fooled by Randomness
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
2004
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Moral luck manifests in practice
Context
A mid-sized self-driving car company releases a software update intended to improve urban pedestrian detection. The engineering team used the same decision framework and testing regimen for all vehicles, but real-world edge cases are inherently rare and hard to reproduce in simulation.
Situation
Two senior engineers (A and B) each approved the same risk/benefit tradeoff for different vehicle batches. Both relied on identical sensor fusion thresholds and the same validation data; both documented the reasoning and logged the tests. Six weeks after deployment, a vehicle from Engineer A's batch was involved in a pedestrian fatality during an unusual lighting condition. No similar incidents occurred in Engineer B's fleet.
The Bias in Action
Public and internal reactions focused heavily on the tragic outcome, equating the engineer associated with the batch to moral culpability even though the documented intent and process matched that of the other engineer. Managers and the press treated the two engineers as morally different: Engineer A was criticized, demoted, and socially shunned; Engineer B was praised for 'good luck' despite having made the same choices. Investigations emphasized the outcome instead of rigorously comparing the decision processes, and performance reviews and HR actions reflected that skewed moral assessment.
Outcome
The company fired Engineer A, initiated a public apology, and settled a lawsuit with the victim's family. Engineer B received a token award and continued in a leadership role. Internally, trust eroded: engineers began making more conservative decisions to avoid being the person associated with a negative outcome, slowing product delivery and innovation.