Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
The prompt is analyzing opinions and beliefs of two authors with each other and with my own opinions on a chosen topic (for me it is moral luck). The authors I have chosen are Thomas Nagel and Nicholas Reascher.
Sample Answer
Analyzing Perspectives on Moral Luck: Thomas Nagel and Nicholas Rescher
Thomas Nagel’s Perspective on Moral Luck
Thomas Nagel, a prominent philosopher, delves into the concept of moral luck in his work, exploring the idea that factors beyond an individual’s control can influence moral judgments. Nagel argues that individuals should not be held morally responsible for outcomes that are a result of circumstances beyond their control. He raises thought-provoking questions about the fairness of attributing moral praise or blame in situations where luck plays a significant role.
Nagel’s stance challenges traditional notions of moral responsibility and accountability, highlighting the complexities inherent in ethical decision-making. By emphasizing the role of luck in shaping outcomes, Nagel prompts readers to reconsider their assumptions about free will, agency, and the nature of moral judgment.
Nicholas Rescher’s Perspective on Moral Luck
Nicholas Rescher, another respected philosopher, offers a contrasting viewpoint on moral luck. Rescher acknowledges the presence of luck in human affairs but argues that moral judgments should be based on factors within an individual’s control. He asserts that individuals have a degree of agency and responsibility in shaping their actions and decisions, regardless of external circumstances.
Rescher’s perspective emphasizes the importance of personal accountability and the need to uphold moral standards even in situations where luck may play a role. By focusing on the choices and intentions of individuals, Rescher advocates for a more deterministic approach to moral evaluation, emphasizing the role of agency in ethical decision-making.
Synthesizing Perspectives and Personal Opinion
When considering Nagel and Rescher’s perspectives on moral luck, it becomes evident that both authors offer valuable insights into the complexities of moral responsibility. While Nagel highlights the influence of luck on outcomes and challenges traditional notions of blame, Rescher underscores the significance of personal agency and accountability in ethical decision-making.
Personally, I find myself drawn to Nagel’s emphasis on the role of luck in shaping moral judgments. I believe that acknowledging the impact of external factors beyond our control is crucial in fostering empathy, understanding, and fairness in our assessments of others. At the same time, I recognize the importance of individual agency and the need for personal accountability, as highlighted by Rescher.
In my opinion, a nuanced approach that considers both the influence of luck and the exercise of agency is essential in navigating complex moral dilemmas. By recognizing the interplay between external circumstances and personal choices, we can adopt a more compassionate and balanced perspective on moral responsibility, embracing both the limitations and possibilities inherent in our ethical decision-making processes.
In conclusion, exploring differing viewpoints on moral luck from authors like Thomas Nagel and Nicholas Rescher enriches our understanding of the complexities surrounding moral responsibility. By critically engaging with diverse perspectives and reflecting on our own beliefs, we can deepen our appreciation for the nuances of ethical reasoning and cultivate a more thoughtful approach to navigating moral challenges in our lives.
