ABSTRACT
The Luck Argument begins with the intuitively compelling idea that there is an inverse relation between luck and control: the more an action is subject to luck, the less it is under our control, and the more an action is under our control, the less it is subject to luck. The luckier my putt is, the less impressive it is that I made it. And if my putt is wholly a matter of luck, then it seems that the putt was not something I did at all. Luck and control thus appear to exclude each other: an action cannot be both wholly a matter of luck and wholly under our control.
