D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I think he wins 2 more frenches. Hes gonna have to win 1 more away from there to tie and 2 to surpass Fed if Roger is truly done. Chance is about 50 50 imo.
Which one is the year Nadal gets 21GS?
- Thread starter itrium84
- Start date
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
denying moral slams to the nadal just because he wasn't born... these people can't be serious !
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
In moral philosophy, there's a literature on "moral luck." Here's the Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck. Here's the section why it's a problem:
"Given the notion of equating moral responsibility with voluntary action, however, moral luck leads to counterintuitive solutions. This is illustrated by an example of a traffic accident. Driver A, in a moment of inattention, runs a red light as a child is crossing the street. Driver A tries to avoid hitting the child but fails and the child dies. Driver B also runs a red light, but no one is crossing and only gets a traffic ticket.
If a bystander is asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, they may assign Driver A more moral blame than Driver B because Driver A's course of action resulted in a death. However, there are no differences in the controllable actions performed by Drivers A and B. The only disparity is an external uncontrollable event. If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally. This may be intuitively problematic, as one situation resulted in a death."
The notion of moral luck helps us illustrate why Nadal has been the moral champion at every Slam event ever played and even those not played. We know that arbitrary contingencies such as being injured, being rusty, being humble, the event not being played, and not being born are not differences in controllable actions performed by the Nadal. Therefore, the only relevant factor is moral invincibility. Nadal is morally unbeaten, nay morally unbeatable, when he's not injured, rusty, or humble, and when the event is held after he was born. As those other factors aren't controllable actions, they cannot fairly be used to strip the moral Slam from him. Therefore, the Nadal is the moral victor at every Slam ever played and even at those that weren't played but should have been.
We should write to Lisa Irene Hau and ask her to add an illustration of the Nadal holding the moral trophy at the Australian Open in 1367 to the second edition of her fine book.
"Given the notion of equating moral responsibility with voluntary action, however, moral luck leads to counterintuitive solutions. This is illustrated by an example of a traffic accident. Driver A, in a moment of inattention, runs a red light as a child is crossing the street. Driver A tries to avoid hitting the child but fails and the child dies. Driver B also runs a red light, but no one is crossing and only gets a traffic ticket.
If a bystander is asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, they may assign Driver A more moral blame than Driver B because Driver A's course of action resulted in a death. However, there are no differences in the controllable actions performed by Drivers A and B. The only disparity is an external uncontrollable event. If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally. This may be intuitively problematic, as one situation resulted in a death."
The notion of moral luck helps us illustrate why Nadal has been the moral champion at every Slam event ever played and even those not played. We know that arbitrary contingencies such as being injured, being rusty, being humble, the event not being played, and not being born are not differences in controllable actions performed by the Nadal. Therefore, the only relevant factor is moral invincibility. Nadal is morally unbeaten, nay morally unbeatable, when he's not injured, rusty, or humble, and when the event is held after he was born. As those other factors aren't controllable actions, they cannot fairly be used to strip the moral Slam from him. Therefore, the Nadal is the moral victor at every Slam ever played and even at those that weren't played but should have been.
We should write to Lisa Irene Hau and ask her to add an illustration of the Nadal holding the moral trophy at the Australian Open in 1367 to the second edition of her fine book.
denying moral slams to the nadal just because he wasn't born... these people can't be serious !
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
I have to play my best tennis, no?
justasport
Professional
21 isn't going to happen for Nadal
itrium84
Hall of Fame
Maybe. Bit still, it could be just a matter of time.
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
These new users offer amazing insight...
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
good idea !
PS: she's currently working on a prequel, called "moral prehistory"... more upcoming moral titles !
Similar threads
