ABSTRACT
The moral significance of luck has been debated since ancient times. Some axiological facts, however, such as the facts that pleasure is good and that pain is bad, seem to hold wholly independently of our control over anything and thus to qualify as a form of global moral luck. Hypological propositions concern what one is morally responsible for having done or brought about. It is this kind of moral luck in particular on which T. Nagel focused, and it is this kind that has been the focus of almost all discussions of moral luck since. The debate concerns whether there is any moral resultant luck. Those who claim that George is more to blame than Georg affirm the existence of such luck, whereas those who hold them equally blameworthy deny it. The intuition to which those who deny such luck seek to pay heed remains as compelling as ever, the present point notwithstanding.
