2
Circumstances and Consequences
CEDRIC TAN 1
INTRODUCTION
Comparing a man who has committed manslaughter to a woman who has simply driven whilst drunk would lead intuitively to us allocating more blame to the man for his actions . Regardless of the amount of alcohol present in them , one would usually state that the man who is the killer , is morally and lawfully more culpable . Taking away life through one ’ s reckless actions has no apparent defense . Yet , a contention arises : what if the woman was driving down the same block ? Would she not have caused the same result or possibly worse due to her deeply inebriated , more so than the man ’ s , condition ? Are we to assign different penalties to each of these people due to their circumstantial luck or are we to take that into account when charging them ?
This case of social justice rests upon the idea of attributing a certain level of blame for the actions of these two drivers . This essay will argue the case that both of these drivers are equally morally culpable for their actions . However , the jump from morality in theory to morality in practice has its limits , therefore
1 . Awarded third place in the Politics and Law category of the John Locke Institute Essay Prize competition . The essay prompt asked : " An intoxicated driver runs over and kills a child . At the scene of the accident the police discover that he registers a blood-alcohol reading of 0.09 . Two blocks away police pull over another driver for a random breath test and find that she has a blood-alcohol level of 0.29 . Which of the two is more culpable ? What penalties should the law impose on each ?"
APORIA : The Sevenoaks School Journal of Philosophy , Vol . II , Publication date : August 2018 .