Let’s concentrate on each philosopher more deeply now. First let’s take a look at some of the issues that Aristotle points out in his book Nicomachean Ethics. He states that moral luck is concerned with situations that are not in our control. Moreover, if someone is virtuous he cannot escape from moral luck. However, you have to be virtuous to get away from it. That is to say, only the virtuous man has the greatest chance of dealing with moral luck since he will not need it. He also states that everything has a function. Human beings for instance have the function of reasoning. To define function of something we first need to find its genus, and then search for particular uniqueness that differ it from the others in the same genus. Lastly, he talks about the idea of ends. Each end is a start for another search for an end. Our academic life stands as a good example. We study to get good grades. We get good grades to get a good job after we graduate. We get a good job to earn good amounts of money and so on. In all cases, the last end to look for is happiness. You can go no further after you reach happiness in one activity. Now, we should concentrate on the idea of moral luck from Aristotle’s perspective.
Aristotle describes moral luck as an issue concerning the question: “How things beyond our control impact our responsibility?” Questions like “Where were we born?” or “Who our parents are?” are examples of questions relating to moral luck, in Aristotle’s perspective. The two major actions types described by Aristotle—voluntary and involuntary— should be examined here. Voluntary actions have three major reasons: fear of great evil, for some noble purpose, and in ignorance. In ITA, we can find many examples to analyze these kinds of actions and by doing so, analyzing moral luck. For our purposes, I want to analyze two situations from ITA: making the decision of climbing to Everest and Rob Hall’s death.
Most of the time, even if something is not in our control by managing our risks we can conclude in a rational outcome. Let’s take a basic example from ITA. Climbing Everest is risky. Climbing with one of the best guides, climbing in one of the best seasons, or climbing with an experienced crew does make it less risky. You wouldn’t climb it alone by yourself in bad weather conditions if you were not a very skilful climber—and even the most skilful fail. There is no doubt that climbing Everest is a voluntary action performed for a noble purpose. Even though the conditions are in favor, you cannot predict anything about the mountain.
So what we have is a group of people performing a voluntary action. Being the result of a voluntary action, the consequences should be faced, just like an action should be done voluntarily, to be praised or blamed. So, voluntary actions are in our control. Even though we cannot predict the exact conditions, we know that there is a possibility of bad things happening in Everest and we must take these small possibilities into account. This makes us responsible for our actions even though if we are in a situation we do not know much about.
Second situation I want to examine is Rob Hall’s death. Let’s summarize it briefly. Rob Hall, the guide of the tour, was with Hansen. Early in the morning he called for help, saying that Hansen was out of oxygen and he needed oxygen fast. In the Base Camp, Cotter and the others were almost sure that Hansen was dead already. Telling Hall that he cannot think healthy, Cotter asked Hall to descend. Hall, on the other hand, would not consider leaving his client there and going back. He was not aware of the fact that his client, Hansen, was already dead. After a while, refusing to come down and staying there, Hall died.
Hall has performed a voluntary action here. He decided to stay in the Hillary Steep toward the Southern Summit. He knew it would risk his life staying there. However, he stayed there to save his client. This is considered as bravery, a virtue as Aristotle describes. Aristotle states that in order to be virtuous, one should be in the mean of that virtue. That is, if one is at the extremes such as crowdedness (lacking of bravery) or recklessness (excess bravery), then s/he is not virtuous. To me, it occurs that, in this case Rob Hall was acting little recklessly. He was risking his life to save his client, even though there was not a good chance of him being saved. We will consider this, however, as a voluntary action reasoned from for some noble purpose, to save his someone’s life. On top everything, Hall lost his deciding and deliberating ability. In great altitudes like this, our brains do not function properly. This changes everything. Even though Aristotle does not state anything about this subject, we can guess that in particular circumstances like this, we cannot praise or blame one because of his actions. Actions of Rob Hall, then, will be considered as involuntary actions. Being unconscious and performing involuntary actions, we cannot hold him responsible for anything he does.
Let’s analyze Epictetus’ perspective through the same examples. Epictetus’ main objective in his handbook was to distinguish between things that are up to us and things that are not up to us. Moreover, he states that, if you act by the handbook, luck will not impact your goal of living a tranquilized life.
Epictetus, one of the most known Stoic philosophers, studies particularly disastrous and unexpected situations. Since ITA includes some disastrous events, it will be more efficient to analyze ITA from Epictetus’ point of view.
Let’s examine some of the main arguments of Epictetus. First, he states that some things are up to us and some things are not. We cannot change things that are not up to us. All we can do is not think about it and let it pass. Secondly important, we should prepare ourselves for everything that has a possibility of happening.
Other subjects taken into account by Epictetus are not as important as the ones we covered but still let’s take a look at those as well. If anything is taken away from us other than our body, it is actually given back not taken away. Also, we only look for our needs. More than that, such as searching for luxury, will not do any good to us. When you are looking for needs and find a luxury when doing so, enjoy the luxury as well. Lastly, he states that we are actors in a play and we should play the fool in this play. We do not get to choose our roles, however, we get to choose how we play it. Therefore, we are responsible for actions. If we do something, we are to be blamed or praised.
Now let’s examine the two examples from ITA to have a practical idea. First one was deciding on going to Everest. Since Epictetus says we are responsible for our own actions, nobody’s responsible for nobody. Even though the fact that a person’s irresponsible action might cause a disaster up there (ITA, pg47), you should be aware of that fact. As Epictetus states, one should consider all the possibilities before taking an action. So, if someone is going to climb Everest, then it means that s/he considered these possibilities. That makes them responsible for their own actions and diminishes the fact of luck.
The second situation we examined from ITA was Rob Hall’s death. Rob Hall decided to stay in the Southern Summit. He made this decision. He should bare the consequences. Since Epictetus’ philosophy is for disastrous situations and since this is one of them, Epictetus’ philosophy fits in the context better than Aristotle’s. Epictetus says if we live by his handbook we will be in good health. Let’s take a look at Rob Hall’s violations of the handbook. Rob Hall tries to change faith. He tries to save his client who only has a slightest chance of living. By doing so, he tries to control things that are not up to him. If you want something that is not up to you and do not get it, you are misfortunate then. Rob Hall is misfortunate here then. Also, Rob Hall’s judgment of the current situation was blurred. He was not thinking properly, therefore not judging properly. All of these facts considered, Rob Hall, in this case, is responsible for his actions.
Now that we examined both Aristotle’s and Epictetus’ perspectives, we can make a distinction between them. Aristotle is dealing with everyday philosophy and has a less strict perspective. On the other hand, Epictetus is a philosopher who is dealing with disastrous situations and has a strict perspective when compared to Aristotle. Both of their philosophies have a common base, idea of luck, but have a different continuation.
