Circumstantial luck

• One of Thomas Nagel’s 4 types of moral luck

Circumstantial

This type of luck relates to the situations and circumstances an individual finds themselves in. The moral tests a person faces are often a matter of luck. For instance, consider an individual who lived in Nazi Germany and became a concentration camp guard. They are rightly condemned for their horrific actions. However, had that same person been transferred to another country before the rise of Nazism, they might have lived a morally unremarkable life. Circumstantial luck suggests that we are judged for the actions we take in the situations we happen to encounter, which are often not of our own choosing.

Gemini explanation

Of course. Let’s delve deeper into the concept of circumstantial luck.

At its core, circumstantial luck refers to the moral luck of being in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time. It is about the specific situations and problems an individual happens to face, which are often determined by factors entirely beyond their control. The moral record of a person—the praise or blame they receive—can be profoundly affected by these chance encounters and environments.

The Core Problem

The paradox arises from a conflict between two of our common beliefs:

1. The Control Principle: We believe that people should only be morally assessed for what is within their control.

2. Our Actual Judgements: We judge people for how they respond to the situations they face, even when they have no control over being in those situations.

Circumstantial luck highlights that the very moral tests we face are often a matter of happenstance.

Nagel’s Classic Example: The Nazi Sympathizer

The most famous illustration of circumstantial luck, provided by Nagel himself, involves citizens in Nazi Germany.

Imagine two individuals with very similar underlying dispositions and characters.

• Person A lives in Germany in the 1930s. As the Nazi regime rises, he is presented with the choice to join the party, inform on his neighbours, or participate in atrocities. Let’s say he makes morally reprehensible choices and becomes an active participant in the regime. We would, quite rightly, condemn him for his actions.

• Person B, who has the same underlying character, was transferred by his company to Argentina for business in 1929, before the Nazis came to power. He lives out his life, never facing the same moral tests as Person A. He may live a perfectly respectable, quiet life, and his moral record remains untarnished.

The crucial point is that if Person B had remained in Germany, he would have behaved just as badly as Person A. The only difference between them is the set of circumstances they were thrown into. Yet, our moral judgement of them is vastly different. Person A is a war criminal; Person B is just an ordinary person. This difference in their moral status is due entirely to luck.

Other Examples of Circumstantial Luck:

The concept applies to many other scenarios, both extreme and everyday:

• Heroism: Someone who happens to be on a subway platform when a person falls onto the tracks has the opportunity to be a hero. Someone with the exact same courageous disposition who never encounters such a situation will never receive that praise, because the opportunity to act never arose. Their moral record is different due to luck.

• Corporate Culture: An ambitious young executive joins a company with a corrupt, high-pressure sales culture that encourages illegal practices. She may engage in fraudulent behaviour she wouldn’t have considered in a different corporate environment. Her colleague, with a similar ambition and moral compass, joins a different company with strong ethical standards and has a stellar career.

• Peer Pressure: A teenager growing up in a neighbourhood dominated by gang activity faces immense pressure to commit crimes. A teenager with a similar temperament in a different, safer neighbourhood will never face that specific choice.

Why It Matters

Circumstantial luck forces us to confront an uncomfortable reality. We judge people for who they are as demonstrated by their actions. Yet, these demonstrative actions are contingent on the opportunities and pressures that luck has placed in their path.

Nagel’s point isn’t that we should stop judging Person A, the Nazi collaborator. Our moral intuitions that he is blameworthy are powerful and arguably necessary for a functioning moral society. Instead, the problem of circumstantial luck reveals a deep paradox in our concept of responsibility. It shows that the “self” which we hold morally responsible can be expanded or contracted by external, contingent factors, threatening the idea that morality is solely a matter of the individual’s will. It makes our moral standing in the world a far more fragile and arbitrary thing than we might like to believe.

Appendix

• Timestamp 10:32 in this (terrible sound quality) 1999 interview with DFW, where he talks about how he became a writer, his own circumstantial luck.
  • Shoutout https://www.dfwaudioproject.org/interviews-profiles/
  • Didn’t write much in college
  • Mediocre high school, very good college
  • Friend (Mark Costello?) wrote a sustained piece of fiction
  • DFW decided he’d try it too, really liked it, preferred it to his philosophy major
  • Decided to go to grad school for writing
  • Someone as a joke gave him a list of agents, sent part of his thesis to Bonnie Nadel, she sold the book
  • “43 kismitish things have to happen… so many talented people want to do this for a living… you have to have a lot of lucky breaks”
  • One of the lucky breaks for me was that this was the mid eighties where it was very hip to be young. Jay Macinerny, Brett Ellis, one of Bonnie’s hooks for selling Broom of the System was “this kid’s only 22 years old”