On “Moral Luck and the Law”

“Moral Luck and the Law” by Enoch examines how moral luck should play in the law. The best way of explaining moral luck is by looking at an example: Should two men who wished to commit murder, but only one being successful, be charged the same? What if two separate people would take a bribe if offered, but only one was given the option? The people who had the intentions, but not the desired outcome, are often charged less in the current court system, so they seem to have a bit or “moral luck” as some would call it compared to the other individual with the same intentions. If you are a believer in moral luck, Enoch would argue that you believe these two individuals have different moral standing and should be punished differently, rather than a blanket punishment for anyone intending to commit the crime regardless of the outcome (Enoch 43). However, if you are like Enoch, you see these crimes as having the same moral accountability and should therefore be punished the same because the same intent was behind the action. If you align with Enoch in this way, then you do not believe in moral luck.

On the other hand, Enoch brings up the idea of legal luck and its undeniable existence in the legal system. Regardless of your belief in moral luck, someone who actually kills someone will be charged heavier than someone who tried but failed to kill someone under the law. Legal luck comes into play regardless of moral intention/luck because of the system of legal responsibilities is in place.

Moral luck and legal luck play off each other and help develop ideas regarding each other, for law is inspired by morality, and over time, things that were once considered moral, may turn immoral due to its legality or otherwise. The balance between moral luck and legal luck, as well as morality and legality are ever-changing and balancing, making it hard to fully grasp, but both are to be considered in the making of laws and deciding of punishments.

Enoch, David. “Moral Luck and the Law.” Philosophy Compass 5, no. 1 (2010): 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00265.x.