1. The concept of "moral luck," introduced by Thomas Nagel, challenges the intuition that moral responsibility should depend only on factors within an agent's control.
2. For instance, two drivers may behave identically recklessly, yet only one strikes a pedestrian who happens to cross the street at that moment, creating vastly different moral assessments.
3. This asymmetry suggests that our ethical judgments are far more contingent on external circumstances than most philosophical frameworks acknowledge.
4. Empirical studies in developmental psychology confirm that children as young as four begin to distinguish between intentional harm and accidental outcomes when evaluating peer behavior.
5. Consequently, any comprehensive theory of moral responsibility must account for the uncomfortable reality that chance plays an irreducible role in determining blame.
4
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is an empirical_vs_moral trap question, recognisable because four sentences construct a tight philosophical argument about moral luck and its implications for ethical theory, while one sentence pivots to citing empirical developmental psychology data that shifts the domain from normative philosophy to descriptive science.
Step 1: Identify the core theme. The paragraph builds a philosophical argument about moral luck. Sentence 1 introduces Nagel's concept. Sentence 2 provides the classic thought experiment (two reckless drivers). Sentence 3 draws the philosophical implication (contingency of ethical judgment). Sentence 5 concludes with the theoretical demand (any theory must account for chance).
Step 2: Analyze the outlier. Sentence 4 cites empirical developmental psychology studies about children's moral reasoning. While topically adjacent to "morality," it shifts the paragraph from a normative philosophical argument to a descriptive scientific finding. The paragraph argues about what moral theory should accommodate; sentence 4 reports what children actually do, which is a fundamentally different mode of discourse.
Step 3: Verify the chain. 1 (Philosophical concept) → 2 (Thought experiment) → 3 (Implication) → 5 (Theoretical conclusion). Sentence 4 breaks the normative chain with empirical data.
Answer: 4