I wanted to call this "begging the question", but it's probably the wrong nomenclature; the pattern of argument is just extremely weird.

I can see the confusion. Essentially I was pointing out that the law is blind to things like "I'm a good drunk driver," except in the case of this moral luck issue.

For instance, there is (thankfully) a principle in force that you cannot, with a dead body at your feet, say "I was just trying to kidnap him." So one crime committed accidentally in the course of another crime gets punished almost as severely as if it was intentional. But drunk driving is only punished severely in the special case where somebody happens to die? Where is the rationale?

Edit: Almost as severely, but not just as severely.