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.