A certain Pepsi commercial from some years ago comes to mind while reading Nagel’s article, in which a young Jimi Hendrix, after purchasing a Pepsi from a vending machine in front of an antique store, notices an electric guitar for sale and decides to purchase it. The camera then pans to behind the rival Coke vending machine, which is a store that sells accordions. The commercial succinctly concludes with the phrase “That was close.”
According to both Pepsi and Thomas Nagel, then, it’s feasible that Jimi Hendrix became a legendary guitarist partially as a result of his soda preference. Had Hendrix chosen the dreaded Coke brand, he might have gone down in history as an accordion star.
Despite this and Nagel’s points on circumstance and moral luck and the self, however, I do not agree with Nagel’s similar view of the self, which (I at least gathered) he considers to be a rather haphazard collections of results from circumstances.
I couldn’t help but notice that Nagel doesn’t address the issue of choice throughout his article; he seems to eliminate the possibility that choice and therefore (I guess) free will really exists by implying that our circumstances will inevitably determine what happens to us. But Nagel states on page 37 that our acts are our own, despite that “everything we do belongs to a world that we have not created (p38).” Although the circumstances and world we did not create can be very influential in the makeup of the self, the self is not created by these circumstances. By saying that our acts are our own, Nagel implies we have some sort of ownership and responsibility to them, and at least some amount of power over them. Because of this, the self (and the will) can make a final decision to commit the act (or not). In other words, we as selves have a choice. Coffee may be my favorite flavor of ice cream, and chocolate my second favorite, but despite those influences I made the decision to go for vanilla today. Nevertheless my “self” has not changed. Rather, I may have affected my circumstances by the choice I made. If Jimi Hendrix had gone for Coke instead of Pepsi and as a result would have become a world-class accordion star, that would of course have been a change of circumstances, but not of Jimi Hendrix as a self. I completely agree that the self can be affected by past and present circumstances, but I do not believe that the self is completely at the mercy of the outside world.
As for how to morally evaluate that self with regard to the circumstances that self might encounter, I’m still not sure. The best I can come up with at the moment is to evaluate the choices the self made (based on the intentions of the decision) and to regard the circumstances one is in as a result of those choices. Unfortunately, this does not apply to “freak accidents” and unexpected situations beyond the control of the individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that you're application of moral evaluation is a good start. Nagel does a decent job of showing the distinction between what is in fact moral luck and what is our earnest decision.
I think in any case it is a realistic expectation to be able to weed out the "luck" and the "character" or "decisions", which if done correctly can lend us important information regarding the intentions, decisions, and circumstances and weigh each accordingly.
I find that Nagel muddles the explanatory process of applying moral luck to moral judgment, however. On page 34 his statement, "A person can be morally responsible only for what he does; but what he does results from a great deal that he does not do; therefore he is not morally responsible for what he is and is not responsible for." I understand his statement to be that a person makes his decision based on uncontrollable external circumstances and then is responsible for both his decision and the circumstances prior to his decision.
I don't believe this is necessary and the circumstances can be seen as separate from any moral judgment which is solely looking at an agent's actual decision. I admit that circumstances can and will influence decisions and in some cases limit the possible decisions but this does not force the responsibility of these circumstances onto the agent, it simply gives one a certain frame of mind when regarding moral judgment.
Post a Comment