The lottery of merit
On the axis: Moral responsibility · the part of luck in merit
Two identical reckless drivers, a child crosses in front of only one: chance makes one a killer and the other lucky. And what we praise, talents, character, was no more chosen: if luck pervades everything, what remains of merit properly one's own?
Two reckless drivers behave exactly alike, each as careless as the other. In front of one only, a child crosses: he runs the child over. The other drives home none the wiser.
Your choice above is recorded in your profile. See my profile →
Justification
The third antinomy sets a seamless against the demand for a free causality, and both theses seem equally provable. Kant resolves it through the distinction: determinism governs the human being as phenomenon, yet nothing forbids thinking him a cause at the noumenal level. The moral law requires it: "you ought" implies "you can", so freedom is a fact of practical reason. Hence the explicit rejection of (a wretched subterfuge); but since freedom stays noumenal, never observed in the world, the score stops short of the extreme.
Critique of Pure Reason, Third Antinomy · Critique of Practical Reason
Anchors: Nagel · Kant
leads to: Freedom of the will · Distributive justice (Desert or natural lottery?)