More Aristotle on Luck: Fortune, Fools and Flow

Aristotle wants to distinguish between fortune and luck.  Events with small benefits can be lucky, but only events with a lot of benefit or a lot of detriment can be counted as fortunate.  Aristotle thought that some people are just fortunate by nature.  These people succeed in life for apparently no reason.  Many times these people are foolish.  In spite of their lack of care or lack of wisdom, these people succeed. For example, foolish people can succeed in the stock market or at navigating even they they are not well-educated in these fields.  While some people succeed because of knowledge or know-how, fortunate people succeed based on consistent great luck.  Aristotle also being a fortunate person is an inexplicably lucky feature or characteristic. Aristotle appealed to a supernatural element to explain how some people are fortunate for life.  Fortunate people are just in touch with some sort of divine or supernatural force.  

Aristotle argues for why fortune is associated with the supernatural.  The kind of argument he uses is an argument by elimination, meaning that he begins with a set of possible explanations and eliminates all alternatives until only one option is left.  First, he considers whether wisdom can explain good fortune.  He rejects wisdom as a cause of fortune.  Wisdom does not cause fortune because fortunate people often have no idea and no explanation of why he or she is fortunate.  Second, Aristotle considers whether fortune is the result of gods favoring fortunate people.  Divine favor is also rejected as a cause of fortune, since divine favor would be shown to the wisest and best men, not the fools who actually are fortunate.  Now, Aristotle does think that luck is somehow the result of god, since lucky people have "inspiration" from the gods.  However, gods do not directly cause fortune.  The last possibility Aristotle considers is whether some people are fortunate by nature.  This creates a puzzle, since if something were caused by nature, then it would happen out of necessity rather than occurring as an accidental cause.  Aristotle solves this problem by saying that some people have natural endowments which are non-rational or a-rational desires that bring about success.  For example, say that Musical Mary is born with an irrational passion to perform and write music.  This passion leads her to pursue music consistently and to have success. Nature has given Mary certain talents and endowments but her fortune is not just the result of being born this way. 

Naturally being born a certain way cannot explain all of Mary's fortune.  For example, how is it that Musical Mary has had favorable desires at times that allowed her to succeed?  Well, it can't be by reason or chance.  Aristotle then says that fortunate people have favorable desires and passions at appropriate times because they are in touch with a divine element in themselves.  Fortunate Musical Mary does not act based on reason but she acts based on divine inspiration.  Dr. James compares this to "being in the flow" when playing sports or games.  Many people who are talented at sports and games succeed in these activities without rational deliberation and choices about their actions.  Musical Mary, for example, can play a complex piano concerto without even thinking carefully about what she is doing.  When I rock climb, I often climb best when I can immerse myself in the activity rather than when I think too much about my actions.  Psychologists call these "flow states".  In flow states one is able to perform better when one does not try hard to reason and think about his or her actions.  One may object and say that flow states are the result of unconscious thought or deliberation, so being in the flow does reflect reason.  A similar objection is that we can train ourselves to have flow states through rational thought  

Determinism, Incompatibalism and Luck

Aristotle thinks that luck is something real.  Unlike Aristotle, some philosophers have been skeptical about the existence of luck.  In other words, these philosophers think that luck is impossible and that luck does not exist.  Here is a short argument against luck:

1. Luck is incompatible with the view that every event is causally determined by a prior physical event (this view is called incompatibalism).
2. Every event is causally determined by a prior physical event according to laws of nature (this view is called determinism).
3. Since determinism and incompatibalism are both true, there is no such thing as luck.

Determinism is just the view that all events happen because they are directly caused by previous events.  There are a few varieties of determinism.  First, there is physical  determinism, which is the view that laws of physics and whatever initial conditions there were at the start of the universe (such as the big bang) determine the events of history.  Second, there is theistic determinism.  According to this view, God has determined history.  God has a plan and everything happens because of God's plan.  Third, there is fatalism.  Fatalism does not specify whether physical laws of nature or God determine events.  Fatalists think that the actual world is the only possible world.  In spite of physics or God, the world could only have been one way: the way it is.

Are incompatibalists right?  Why is determinism incompatible with luck?  Well, most people can agree that lucky events are event that "could have been otherwise".  Based on this criterion for luck, here is a brief argument for incompatibalism:

1. Events are lucky events if and only if it might not have occurred.  Things happen by luck only if events could have been otherwise.
2. If determinism is true, then everything happens out of necessity.  In other words, things could not have been otherwise.
3. So if determinism is true, then no events are lucky or unlucky.

Aristotle thought that determinism is compatible with luck.  He imagines a scenario where two friends meet by chance in a market.  For example, say that I have to buy eggs and my friend has to buy coffee.  We do not expect to see each other but when we do, we are both glad and happy that we met.  Perhaps we are both causally determined to visit the same market at the same time.  In spite of the truth of determinism, Aristotle thinks that this kind of event can count as good luck.

Aristotle thought that a lucky event was an event that was inadvertant (unintentional), unforeseeable (not expected) harm or benefit in action.  Aristotle gives the following four conditions for a lucky event: first, luck is an accidental cause.  Second, this accidental cause that affects the outcome of a deliberate and purposeful action.  Third, luck causes outcomes that we do not intend or expect.  Fourth and last, the unintended and unexpected outcome is either good for us or bad for us.  Dr. James summarizes this by listing three elements to luck: there must be a choice, there must be a benefit and this benefit must result accidentally rather than as a result of the choice.

For example, say that Sam is really craving Gina's Pizza.  Sam goes to Gina's and orders a slice of pizza.  As Sam enjoys his pizza, Kobe Bryant walks in.  Now, Sam is a huge Lakers fan.  Sam introduces himself and gets to shake Kobe's hand.  Because he got to meet Kobe, Sam is greatly benefited by his choice to go to Gina's.  However, his reason for going to Gina's was to get pizza, not to meet Kobe.  Sam made a choice which resulted in an unexpected and unforeseen benefit.  Sam got lucky!

Aristotle thinks that luck is not "accountable to reason".  In other words, luck does not follow the rules of logic or physical laws.  There are three major categories of things that are accountable to reason.  Natural things, for example, have natural, innate, essential (non-accidental) features.  For example, a tree has a natural and innate ability to photosynthesize.  Artificial products are also accountable to reason.  Artificial products are just things that humans make.  Because humans make them, they are created to have specific purposes.  Also, there are natural fields of science that are accountable to reason.  Mathematics, optics, harmonics and astronomy are all fields that study things that follow laws of logic and physics.

The Attempt to Define Luck: What the Luck?

After introducing luck in general, Dr. James then tried to define luck.  For example, an event is lucky if and only if it is lucky for some people (or subjects) and potentially unlucky for some people.  Lucky events are either good or bad for a subject.  In other words, lucky events have valence.  Valence just means that lucky events are always either lucky or unlucky for someone and that lucky events are always good or bad for someone.  In addition to valence, lucky events must also be beyond a person's control.  Events that a person has full control over are not lucky events.

Latus thinks that such a definition of luck is insufficient.  He came up with some counterexamples that fit these criteria but are not instances of luck.  For example, the sun rises every day is a good occurrence and it is beyond our control, but it's not lucky.  Another example is gravity.  It's good for us that we don't just drift out into space, but we're not lucky that gravity exists.

In response to Latus, someone might say that luck requires that the event is an accident that was unintended.  This addition to the definition of luck is also problematic, since winning the lottery is a case of luck but winning the lottery is not unintentional.  A person wants to win the lottery when he or she buys a ticket.

Another attempt to improve the definition of luck is to say that lucky events are matters of chance.  However, there is another counterexample to this definition.  For example, there may be a forecast for a 90% chance of rain tomorrow.  But if it does rain tomorrow, this is not a result of luck.

Someone might try to further refine the definition of luck by saying that lucky events are events that had a low probability of happening.  Only things that happen "against odds" are lucky.  But consider Russian Roulette, a game where a gun is loaded with a single bullet.  A person who plays this game has a low chance of dying (1/6) but this person is still lucky to be alive.  In spite of the fact that there was a high probability that the person would live, we still say that a person is lucky to survive Russian Roulette.

Yet another improvement of the definition of luck is to say that an event is lucky if the person who experienced the event was not in a position to know that the event would occur.  If a person does not have evidence that an event will occur, then perhaps these events are lucky.  But imagine this counterexample: imagine that some all-knowing entity, such as God, a superphysicist or a psychic, tells you that you will win the lottery.  Although you expect to win the lottery after hearing this, it is still a matter of luck that you win the lottery.

Still a different definition of luck is to say that an event is lucky if the event did occur but could easily have not occurred.  In other words, if circumstances were only slightly different, then the event would not have happened.  A counterexample to this is a case where a person is born with a terrible genetic disease.  It is not possible that this person could have been born without the disease.  He or she could not have easily been born without the disease,  yet this person is unlucky to have the disease.

Rescher wants to draw a distinction between luck and fortune.  Perhaps getting a disease is unfortunate, but because it happens in the natural course of things, it is not unlucky.  Another example is that a person may be fortunate to be born beautiful, but he or she is not lucky.  Rescher thinks that fortunate things happen in the natural course of events but lucky or unlucky things somehow happen outside of the natural course of events.  For example, having a cold is unfortunate but having a cold on the day that you happen to have a final exam is unlucky.  Or being born ugly is unfortunate but being born ugly in a family full of beautiful people is unlucky.

First Lecture: Intro to Luck

Dr. James is providing an introduction to ethics by looking at luck.  We will consider what role luck plays in moral responsibility and freedom, as well as the role it plays in punishment and other social institutions.

The first thing we will then address is what counts as luck. What is luck?   First, games that are won merely by chance are an example of luck.  For example, one does not need skill to win a lottery or to win on a slot machine.  Whether someone wins at these games of chance is merely a matter of luck.  Someone who wins a slot machine has good luck.  Second, another example of luck is when chance events cause a person to either fail or succeed at an action.  For example, say that a person is a very good rock climber and so they decide to climb a very tall rock without any ropes or safety equipment because the climb to the top of the rock is very simple.  Now imagine that a butterfly flies out of one of the holes on the rock, scaring the climber.  Startled, the climber falls to her death.  The climber did not fall because she was not skilled enough.  She fell because she had bad luck.  Dr. James notes that the most enjoyable games or competitions are those where one must rely on both luck and skill.  Third, one can have natural or social endowments.  Natural endowments include talents and abilities such as being good at learning languages or having musical talents.  Social endowments include being born rich or being born into a royal family.  Fourth and Finally, there are twists of fate.  Twists of fate are a common theme in tragic dramatic plays, such as Greek tragedies and Shakespeare.

Another way we can think about luck is by examining common ways that people think about luck.  In other words, what are our psychological tendencies about luck?  For example, a study by Risen and Gilovich shows that people are unwilling to trade lottery tickets with a neighbor in spite of the fact that doing so does not affect the probability that they will win.  This is meant to show that people are afraid to "tempt fate".  Another study (Olson) shows that children are more likely to show a preference for people who have good luck rather than people who have bad luck.  Even adults care about luck.  A study by Damisch et al has shown that people perform better on skill-based tasks if they perform lucky rituals beforehand.  For example, if a pro tennis player touches a lucky rabbit's foot before playing, he is more likely to play well.  In another example, a student may write a better paper if he or she does a lucky little dance beforehand.

Dr. James also want to contrast modern attitudes on luck with ancient attitudes.  Ancient Greeks accepted that much of our lives are up to chance and fate and that humans have limited control over our lives.  Even Happiness and virtue are the result of luck and circumstance.  An exception to this trend in ancient Greece was Epictetus, a stoic philosopher who thought that a person can be happy in spite of bad luck.  Epictetus thought that humans have a large amount of control over their happiness.  Humans started to understand probability and statistics in the 17th century.  Dr. James notes that the intellectual understanding of chance and luck helps us to control and shape our lives.  Because in the modern day we have a better understanding of probability, chance and luck, we have a better idea of when individuals or groups are responsible.  The modern understanding of luck can be adopted by both liberal and conservative political thinkers.  Conservatives may be likely to emphasize the role that luck plays in collective endeavors (such as running a government) and emphasize the personal control that an individual has over his or her own life.  A liberal thinker may be more likely to emphasize the collective responsibility and control that groups have while also emphasizing the role that luck plays in the life of an individual (such as wealth, race, place of birth).

A New Quarter, A New Class

Hello hello!

My name is Louise.  Feel free to call me Weez or Weezy.  I am a TA for Dr. James' Intro to Ethics class at UCI this spring.

In previous entries I have already introduced myself and explained what to do before section.

Please visit my blog often and feel free to comment on any posts for clarification or further questions!

Nozick on Social Justice

While Rawls thinks that fairness is most important to make a just society, Nozick thinks that entitlement is the criterion for a just society.  Basically, goods should be distributed to people who are entitled to them because they have worked hard or are talented.  He is a political libertarian, meaning that he wants to maximize personal liberty.

Three principles of justice.  The Principle of Justice in Acquisition is the idea that people are entitled to goods like wealth, clean water and love only if the goods are acquired in a just way.  For example, if a loaf of bread is stolen, then a person is not entitled to it whereas if you work hard to earn money to buy bread then you are entitled to it.  The idea is that if you work for something, you deserve it.  The Principle of Justice in Transfer is the idea that holds transferred from one person to another is only just if done so voluntarily and if the person transferring them acquired them justly.  For example, buying stolen goods from a thief is not a just transfer because the thief acquired them in an unjust way.  The Principle of Rectification is the idea that if there is not justice in acquisition or in transfer, then the rightful owners should have their goods returned.

Objections.  Nozick is not specific about what it means to acquire goods justly.  Also, what about native societies who are the first to gain ownership of goods?  Are Native Americans, for example, entitled to all the land and resources that they once held?  Also, since the goods were taken from Native Americans were taken by force, does this mean we should return the goods?

Nozick on Justice in Transfer.  Nozick calls his version of justice entitlement justice.  He calls Rawls' version of justice end-state justice.  Nozick notes that goods in many societies are distributed unequally.  For example, the richest 5% of a population may control 90% of the wealth.  While Rawls would say that this situation requires a re-distribution (transfer) of goods, Nozick says that the inequality itself is not enough of a reason to transfer goods.  Nozick thinks that we must consider if the wealthiest people are entitled to that wealth or not.

Nozick thinks that only an unregulated market is just.  He thinks that using taxation, for example, to redistribute wealth, is just like stealing.  Of course people cannot steal or cheat in order to get wealth, but people should be free to earn as much wealth as possible for them.

Nozick uses an example with basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain to show that Rawls in wrong.  First, imagine that we are in a society where Rawls' method of distributing goods has been used.  This means that goods are distributed as equally as possible.  Now, imagine that Wilt has signed a contract with his basketball team according to which he gets a profit of 25 cents from the sale of each ticket.  Because of this, Wilt earns a massive fortune.  Now, the acquisiton of this wealth seems just but Rawls is forced to say that this is an unfair distribution.  Nozick thinks that it is ridiculous to deny that Wilt deserves his wealth!  Basically, if people chose to make Wilt so dang rich, then it is fair that Wilt is to dang rich!

Sven notes that we can offer a slightly different case in order to continue to test whether Rawls or Nozick is right.  For example, say that instead of 25 cents, Wilt is earning $250 per ticket that his fans purchase.  Or imagine that there is a monopoly where there is only one provider of a good.  Maybe Wilt was extra industrious and he bought up all the rubber trees in the world in order to be the sole provider of basketballs and basketball shoes.  Wilt then decides to charge $500 per basketball and $1.000 per pair of shoes.  Even though Wilt has justly acquired that wealth, can we say that he deserves it?  Nozick would say yes but Rawls would say no.

Rawls on Justice

Rawls is concerned with social justice.  Specifically, he is concerned with a just distribution of goods (positive things), such as wealth, education and perhaps even emotional goods such as happiness and love.  In other words, Rawls is concerned with how goods are spread out in a society. Currently, goods are distributed unfairly.  Some individuals and nations have concentrated wealth, for example.  Rawls thinks that a just distribution of goods must be fair.  In order to decide what kind of distribution is fair, we must decide how to distribute goods without knowing how or if we will benefit from the way goods are distributed.

Rawls thinks that we can tell if a distribution is fair by using a thought experiment. Imagine that you are unaware of what position you will have in a society.  This is what Rawls calls the original position, which is a hypothetical scenario.  Rawls says that in the original position, you are behind a veil of ignorance.  You do not know if you will be president or a pauper.  You also don't know if you are young or old, rich or poor, married or single or talented or useless.  You also don't know what race, religion or culture you belong to.  Rawls thinks that if we don't know where we will be in a society, we will want to create a fair society where goods are distributed equally.  Basically, the idea is that since you could possibly end up in the worst possible position, you would want to be treated fairly even as the lowest person in the hierarchy.

Two Principles.  Rawls thinks that once behind the veil of ignorance, it will be rational to support two principles.  First, we will support the equal liberty principle, which states that liberty for all people should be maximized.  For example, everyone has the same freedom of speech so long as one person's freedom of speech does not interfere with another person's  Second, it is rational to support the difference principle, which is about differences in distribution of goods.  Specifically, the difference principle says that differences in how goods are distributed will be designed to benefit everyone in the society and will also be attached with positions or roles in the hierarchy that are available to everyone.  For example, police may have additional power to use force and violence but this is because we think that this makes the whole society better.  Also, this power is available to anyone who wants to apply to work with the police.  Rawls thinks that the equal liberty principle is more basic and more important than the difference principle.  Also, you cannot trade your liberties in order to gain goods.  For example, you cannot sell your right to vote in order to gain wealth.

The basic idea is that such a method of designing a society will help to compensate for inequalities.  For example, a person may be lucky and is born wealthy.  However, this does not mean that this person deserves to be rich.  Or someone might be born the son of a king but this does not mean that the king's son deserves to be royalty.

The equal liberty principle requires that one person's liberty will not interfere with another's.  For example, my right to own a gun cannot interfere with my roommate's right to be safe.  The difference principle requires not only that differences in distribution benefit everyone but also that special liberties or a wealth of goods must be earned and that such opportunities are available to everyone.  For example,  the president has special power. But the president only has special power because (1) it benefits our government and society if the president has special power and (2) the president earned this power through free elections in which anyone is free to run for president.

Objections to Rawls.  First, the difference principle focuses only on the goods of each person individually rather than in comparison to other people.  Specifically, the difference principle allows that as long as the lower class is benefited somehow, it is ok if the upper class benefits greatly.  Second, the difference principle limits the benefits that talented or hard-working people can gain.  If a person is smart, talented and hardworking, then why should there be limits to how much that person can earn?  If that person works harder than other person, they should earn more!