MORAL LUCK
I. Basics
Meeting time: Wednesday 2.30-5P
Meeting place: HSS 114
Professor: E.J. Coffman
E-mail address: ecoffma1@utk.edu
Course website: http://online.utk.edu
Office: 816 McClung Tower
Office Hours: Thursday 1.30-3.30P; by appointment
II. Texts
Electronic versions of all assigned readings are available at our course’s Online@UT Blackboard site
(access at http://online.utk.edu). (Ask the students in last semester’s grad seminar how expensive their
books were and you’ll consider yourselves very lucky!) Now, if you really want to buy a book for our
course, I highly recommend A.P. Martinich’s Philosophical Writing: An Introduction (Blackwell, 1997).
This is the best book I know of on basic philosophical concepts, terms, methods, and writing advice. If
you already have Martinich’s book, you might try tracking down a used copy of Daniel Statman’s (ed.)
presently out-of-print Moral Luck (State University of New York Press, 1993). Almost all our assigned
readings (which, again, are available at Bb) come from this book; we’ll be reading most, but not quite all,
of it. It’s currently the main anthology on the topic, so if you get quite interested in the issues we cover
you might like to have a copy of it.
III. Course Overview
We’ll be exploring influential recent work on what’s often called the problem of moral luck. So what’s
moral luck, and what’s the problem?
A case of moral luck would be a scenario where you have a certain moral status which is somehow due
to luck. Simply put, the problem here is that there are apparently decisive reasons both for and against the
possibility of moral luck. To make the problem a little clearer, consider this trio of claims:
▪ No moral status or property can be had by way of luck.
▪ You have various character- and act-related moral properties.
▪ Luck has played a significant role in your character (who you are) and actions (what you do).
Taken individually, each of these claims is plausible. But the claims are also jointly incompatible: from
any two of them, you can deduce the denial of the remaining one. So while each claim is plausible when
considered by itself, we can see that they can’t all be true—at least one of these individually plausible
claims must be false. The goal for each of us will be to make significant progress toward working out
well-reasoned answers to the following closely related questions:
◦ Which of the above claims should we ultimately reject? Why should we reject it (them)?
▫ Which (if any) of the claims should we ultimately accept? Why should we accept it (them)?
▫ What could explain why the rejected claim(s) misleadingly strike us as being true?
Carefully reconstructing and evaluating key arguments defended in influential recent work on the
problem of moral luck will help us develop our own well-reasoned positions on these questions. (For
1
additional introductory discussion of the problem of moral luck, see the very helpful entries on the topic
in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both of which
are available for free online.)
This course is also this year’s Proseminar for new graduate students (it counts as an ELMS seminar for
old graduate students). The Proseminar’s main purpose is to focus us more intently on—and help us
continue cultivating and strengthening—certain “research-oriented” habits and skills required to thrive in
graduate school, and beyond as a professional. These are habits and skills that help position you to make
a significant written contribution (e.g., MA thesis/PhD dissertation, conference presentation, published
article, etc.) to work on your favorite philosophical issues. Central among these habits and skills are:
• finding recent, high-quality work (journal articles, books, reviews, …) on your favorite
philosophical topics, questions, and issues.
• properly understanding—or: trying hard and realizing that you still don’t understand—the central
philosophical “moves” in whatever you’re currently studying (assigned by others or yourself).
• coming up with—and then developing in some detail—“debate-advancing” objections, arguments,
theories, accounts, analyses, defenses, etc.
• sharing and discussing your ideas with peers and professors.
• identifying additional relevant published work to ensure your research is suitably informed and
thorough.
• drafting well-organized, well-written conference- (≈ 3000 words) and journal- (≈ 5000 words)
length papers that meet the following basic criteria for good philosophical essays:
◦ is informed by, and interacts with, some prominent recent (≈ last 15-20 years) works.
◦ presents plausible arguments for nontrivial conclusions.
◦ defends main arguments from obvious questions, objections, worries, etc.
▫ has been revised in light of feedback from peers and professors.
While these habits and skills are “research-oriented,” cultivating them naturally improves one’s teaching
too.
IV. Course Requirements
▪ A main goal for everyone: A paper worthy of presentation at a well-established professional
philosophy conference.
A. Proseminar requirements
▪ Mini-Commentary (MC) on each assigned reading
▫ For each assigned reading (no more than two in a week, and often just one), you’ll write a 1-2 page
essay in which you try to do two things: (i) “contextualize” and reconstruct one of the reading’s key
philosophical moves (e.g., an argument, objection, defense, account, etc.) and (ii) raise a significant
2
question about, or objection to, that move. And you’ll do these things using our discipline’s standard
technical terminology for explaining and assessing argumentation (for a refresher, see the papers by
Frances, Pryor, and Coffman in the ‘Basic Concepts, Terms, & Methods’ folder at our Bb site).
You’ll submit a given MC to me—electronically (preferred) or hard copy—around (typically just
before or just after) the meeting where we discuss the reading it concerns.
▫ MCs will form the basis of class discussion. Much (ideally, most) of our time in class will be
devoted to group discussion of assigned readings. Our aim in discussing a given paper will be to lay
the groundwork for what would be a good “conference commentary” on that paper—a reply that
raises a handful of critical points meant to help the author improve the paper.
▪ One MC presentation (any way you like: read it, talk us through it informally, use PowerPoint, …)
▪ Philosopher’s Index research assignment
▫ Using Philosopher’s Index (accessible through the Library’s Philosophy subject guide:
http://www.lib.utk.edu/refs/phil/), you’ll find two recent (≈ last 15 years) articles that you think might
figure in your term paper for the course. You’ll then read, and write an MC on, each article (due: 5P
Friday October 30th).
▪ Term paper (2500-3000 words)
▫ You’ll write this course’s term paper (which can build on some of your MCs) in five steps:
• Before starting serious work on a full draft of your term paper, you’ll construct a prospectus that
you’ll submit to me for comments (due: 5P Friday November 6th).
◦ prospectus = a rough summary (in paragraph or outline form) of the following key
elements of your paper: (i) the main conclusion(s) you’ll be arguing for; (ii) brief sketches of
the arguments you’ll give for your main conclusion(s); and (iii) brief sketches of some
questions about, or objections to, your argument you’ll consider.
• You’ll then work up a full draft of your paper in light of my feedback on your prospectus.
• Next, I’ll pair you with one of your colleagues, who will provide you with written comments on
a full draft of your paper.
• After revising your paper in light of your colleague’s comments, you’ll submit your paper to me
for additional comments (due: 5P Tuesday December 1st).
• Finally, you’ll submit a draft of your paper revised in light of my comments (due: 12P Monday
December 14th).
▫ I urge you to consult with me—both informally (e.g., office or e-mail chats) and formally (e.g.,
submit some writing for my comments)—at any and every stage of developing your term paper.
That’s what I’m here for. Don’t be a stranger.
▪ Small but important pro-research activities
▫ Sign up for electronic updates from some journals relevant to your main philosophical interests.
3
▫ Identify three non-APA professional or graduate student conferences to which you could submit a
polished version of your term paper.
B. ELMS seminar requirements
▪ Three Critical Commentaries (first two before Fall Break, third before Thanksgiving)
Each of your CCs (≈ 1000 words) will earn a grade of Exemplary, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory. An
Exemplary CC will raise—and maybe attempt to answer—a handful of objections to and/or questions
about central parts of some or other required or recommended reading(s). All CCs must be typed and
include a word count.
▪ Term Paper (3000-4000 words)
You’ll submit a prospectus (see above) to me for comments by 5P Friday November 13th. The final
draft of your term paper will be due by 5P Monday December 7th. Your term paper can derive from
one of your CCs.
▪ Small but important pro-research activities (see above)
V. Important Dates
8/19 (W): First class meeting
10/15-10/16 (R-F): Fall Break; first two CCs due (ELMS)
10/30 (F): PI research assignment due (Proseminar)
11/6 (F): Term paper prospectus due (Proseminar)
11/13 (F): Term paper prospectus due (ELMS)
11/25 (W): Class cancelled (holiday traveling)
11/26-11/27 (R-F): Thanksgiving Break; third CC due (ELMS)
12/1 (T): First full draft of term paper due (Proseminar—revised in light of colleague’s comments)
12/2 (W): Last class meeting (?)
12/7 (M): Full draft of term paper due (ELMS)
12/14 (M): Second full draft of term paper due (Proseminar—revised in light of EJ’s comments)
VI. Very Important Illness Policy
From the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/guidelines_colleges.htm):
“Students, faculty or staff who live either on or off campus and who have Influenza Like Illness should
self-isolate (i.e., stay away from others) in their dorm room or home for at least 24 hours after their fever
is gone except to get medical care or for other necessities (their fever should be gone without the use of a
fever-reducing medicine). They should keep away from others as much as possible. This is to keep from
making others sick.”
Please follow these directions. If you need to miss class due to illness, just send me an e-mail when you
can, and I’ll fill you in on what you missed.
4
VII. List of Readings
▪ All assigned readings will be available at Bb.
▪ I’ll make official reading assignments in class, over e-mail, and at Bb.
▪ The first block of readings below are the ones we’ll almost certainly do; they are more or less our
required readings.
▪ The second block is a list of important, influential papers related to our course topic that may well be
helpful to you as you plan and work on your term paper, etc.; they are more or less our recommended
readings. You can get information on all of them—and should be able to access most of them—through
Philosopher’s Index and/or philpapers. (N.B.: If you read one of the papers in the second block and think
it really should be an assigned reading, let me know and I’ll definitely consider it.)
Bernard Williams, “Moral Luck”
Thomas Nagel, “Moral Luck”
Judith Andre, “Nagel, Williams, & Moral Luck”
Henning Jensen, “Morality & Luck”
Nicholas Rescher, “Moral Luck”
Norvin Richards, “Luck and Desert”
Steven Sverdlik, “Crime & Moral Luck”
Judith Thomson, “Morality & Bad Luck”
Michael Zimmerman, “Luck & Moral Responsibility”
Margaret Walker, “Moral Luck & the Virtues of Impure Agency”
Galen Strawson, “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”
Brynmor Browne, “A Solution to the Problem of Moral Luck”
Susan Wolf, “The Moral of Moral Luck”
John Fischer, “Responsibility & Self-Expression”
Duncan Pritchard, “Moral & Epistemic Luck”
EJ Coffman, “Thinking about Luck”
Jennifer Lackey, “What Luck is Not”
Wayne Riggs, “Luck, Knowledge, & Control”
Asbjorn Steglich-Peterson, “Luck as an Epistemic Notion”
------------------------------------------------------------------------Robert Adams, “Involuntary Sins.” The Philosophical Review (1985).
R. Arneson, “Luck and Equality.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (2001).
D. Domsky, "There is No Door: Solving the Problem of Moral Luck." Journal of Philosophy (2004).
Joel Feinberg, "Problematic Responsibility in Law and Morals." The Philosophical Review (1962).
Joel Feinberg, “Equal Punishment for Failed Attempts.” The Arizona Law Review (1995).
Harry Frankfurt, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” Journal of Philosophy (1969).
Susan Hurley, “Luck and Equality.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (2001).
David Lewis, “The Punishment that Leaves Something to Chance.” Philosophy and Public Affairs (1989).
B. Rosebury, “Moral Responsibility and Moral Luck.” Philosophical Review (1995).
Susan Wolf, “The Metaphysics of Moral Responsibility.” In Free Will (2nd ed.), ed. Watson (OUP: 2003).
Michael Zimmerman, “Taking Luck Seriously.” Journal of Philosophy (2002).
Michael Zimmerman, "Moral Luck: A Partial Map." Canadian Journal of Philosophy (2006).
5