The concept of luck has long been debated in philosophy. Some key questions philosophers have explored include: What constitutes luck? Does true luck exist or is what we call luck just a manifestation of unknown causes? What role, if any, does luck play in human life and events?
Philosophers disagree on the nature and significance of luck. Some argue luck is an illusion while others see it as a genuine occurrence that can profoundly impact lives. Exploring philosophical perspectives on luck sheds light on the complex interplay between determinism and free will, moral responsibility, and life’s apparent randomness.
What is Luck?
There is no widely agreed upon definition of luck in philosophy. However, there are some key attributes that philosophical conceptions of luck often share:
- Luck involves events or outcomes that are significant to an agent (person).
- The outcome must be largely outside of the agent’s control.
- The event or outcome must be unlikely or statistically improbable.
- The agent had no rational basis to predict the outcome.
- Luck is often contrasted with one’s deliberate efforts and intrinsic traits.
The scope of what counts as luck is debated. Some philosophers argue everyday coincidences are too trivial to qualify as genuine luck. Others adopt a broader conception of luck that can include modest coincidences. There is also disagreement about whether luck should be defined objectively or subjectively.
Objective vs. Subjective Conceptions of Luck
Objective conceptions of luck focus on events that are statistically unlikely from a neutral standpoint. For example, winning the lottery is widely considered lucky because it is extremely improbable statistically. Subjective conceptions of luck also factor in the individual agent’s expectations. An event that is unlikely from the agent’s perspective is lucky, even if the actual odds are decent. For instance, an internal candidate being hired may be lucky for them if they thought their chances were slim.
Does True Luck Exist? Determinism vs. Indeterminism
A major philosophical debate is whether luck, as defined above, actually exists. This issue intersects with the conflict between determinism and indeterminism.
Determinism is the view that all events are the inevitable result of preceding events and states, following universal physical laws. Luck does not exist in a deterministic worldview because nothing is truly random. Apparent luck is just a byproduct of hidden causes. By contrast, indeterminism holds that some events are fundamentally random and uncaused. Luck can genuinely occur in an indeterministic world.
Determinist Position: Luck is Illusory
The determinist position is that luck is not real in a meaningful sense. What we call luck is just a consequence of the huge complexity of the deterministic chain of causes. Outcomes that seem unlikely or unforeseeable from a limited human perspective are still inevitable based on previous states of the universe. As philosopher Daniel Dennett argues, deterministic luck is not true randomness but mere “deterministic chaos.”
Apparent luck happens when hidden causal factors coincide in an unexpected way. For instance, a person happens to catch their bus because hundreds of precising timing details fell into place. However, those details were set in motion long before by the clockwork laws of physics. What seems like improbable luck was destined to occur. Nothing was genuinely left to chance.
Indeterminist Position: Genuine Luck Exists
By contrast, indeterminism allows for authentic luck not caused by prior events. The assumption is that the physical world is not entirely deterministic and some events occur spontaneously or randomly. Outcomes that are extremely improbable or unexplainable based on past states may still happen. In this worldview, it is sensible to speak of someone being genuinely lucky or unlucky rather than it being illusory.
Quantum indeterminacy in physics is often cited to back this position. However, most quantum events are too microscopic to impact everyday luck. The indeterminist must hold that indeterminism also manifests in macro physical events, which remains controversial. Still, the possibility of an at least partially indeterministic world can’t be ruled out.
Middle Grounds
There are some attempts to find a middle ground between strong determinism and indeterminism. For example:
- Limited indeterminism: Most events are determined but some fundamentally random micro-events can generate macro-level indeterminacies. This view allows for some role of objective luck while retaining an overall deterministic framework.
- Epistemic luck: Events are determined but human knowledge is limited. “Luck” describes the human experience of uncertainty, not any actual metaphysical indeterminism. This approach preserves deterministic causality while accepting luck as a psychological phenomenon.
Moral Luck: Does Luck Influence Ethics and Responsibility?
Beyond whether it objectively exists, philosophers also debate the moral and ethical implications of luck. Does luck invalidate morality and justice or can it coherently factor into our judgments?
Moral luck occurs when factors outside someone’s control positively or negatively impact moral assessments of their character or actions. For example, reckless driving is seen as more morally blameworthy if it happens to cause an accidental death (negative moral luck). Likewise, impulsive generosity appears more virtuous if it happens to save someone’s life (positive moral luck).
The Problem of Moral Luck
However, many philosophers argue basing ethics on luck is irrational or unjustified. Immanuel Kant objected that moral value stems from one’s motivation and will, not external events outside one’s control. It seems fundamentally unfair to judge people more harshly just because luck worked against them. This dilemma is called the problem of moral luck.
Solutions to the problem aim to eliminate moral luck entirely or mitigate its impact. For example, consequentialists judge acts solely by their outcomes. Virtue ethicists focus on character traits and intentions rather than particular actions. Other approaches argue luck should only slightly influence moral judgments rather than radically alter them.
Defenses of Moral Luck
However, some philosophers contend that discounting luck is not always realistic or desirable. Thomas Nagel argues that moral luck is a pervasive, unavoidable aspect of the human condition. Eliminating it from ethics would require detaching from real human psychology and lived experience. Similarly, Bernard Williams contends stripping away luck makes ethics impersonal and alienating. Integrating luck can justify intuitions that moral assessments should reflect life’s contingency.
Defenders of moral luck believe that adjusting judgments based on unchosen circumstances need not wholly invalidate agency and responsibility. Factoring in luck can yield a nuanced, proportionate ethics reflecting life’s complexities without negating free will. Moderation is key – luck shapes but does not control moral judgments.
Perspectives on Life’s Apparent Randomness
A final dimension of the philosophy of luck is how we interpret and find meaning in life’s apparent randomness. Does pervasive luck imply life is meaningless, challenging teleological worldviews? Or can beliefs like fate or divine providence reconcile luck’s caprices with higher purpose?
Nihilism and Absurdism
For nihilists, the prevalence of luck supports life’s meaninglessness. Events are randomly determined, undoing the best human efforts. Absurdists like Camus see life’s randomness as rendering futile the search for objective meaning. We must embrace life’s absurdity and create our own subjective meaning.
Stoicism
Stoics stressed focusing only on what is within one’s control. External “fortunes” like luck are irrelevant to virtue and eudaimonia. Stoics refine their moral goals to be robust despite the vagaries of fortune. Serenity comes from detaching from reliance on luck.
Providential Worldviews
Adherents of monotheistic religions often reconcile luck with meaning by invoking divine providence. Everything happens for a reason known only to God. Apparent randomness reflects human ignorance, not metaphysical chanciness. Luck is merely part of God’s broader purpose.
Neutralizing Luck’s Significance
Even secular philosophies aim to minimize luck’s threat to meaning. Utilitarians try to hedge against luck by judging acts based on expected outcomes rather than actual results. Some naturalistic worldviews argue that reducing suffering and promoting flourishing bring meaning regardless of luck. Optimistic philosophies also focus on cultivating virtue and creativity as worthy goals notwithstanding life’s capriciousness.
Conclusion
The concept of luck has long fascinated and perplexed philosophers. Key debates include whether luck is a genuine feature of the world or merely an illusion due to hidden causes. The implications of luck for ethics and meaning are also controversial. While troubling for some philosophies, others accommodate luck more successfully. Exploring philosophical perspectives provides a fruitful lens for understanding life’s apparent randomness.