good luck and bad luck essay

March 1, 2018

The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized

Are the most successful people in society just the luckiest people?

By Scott Barry Kaufman

Clark Tibbs Unsplash

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

What does it take to succeed? What are the secrets of the most successful people? Judging by the popularity of magazines such as Success , Forbes , Inc. , and Entrepreneur, there is no shortage of interest in these questions. There is a deep underlying assumption, however, that we can learn from them because it's their personal characteristics--such as talent, skill, mental toughness, hard work, tenacity, optimism, growth mindset, and emotional intelligence-- that got them where they are today. This assumption doesn't only underlie success magazines, but also how we distribute resources in society, from work opportunities to fame to government grants to public policy decisions. We tend to give out resources to those who have a past history of success, and tend to ignore those who have been unsuccessful, assuming that the most successful are also the most competent.

But is this assumption correct? I have spent my entire career studying the psychological characteristics that predict achievement and creativity. While I have found that a certain number of traits -- including passion, perseverance, imagination, intellectual curiosity, and openness to experience-- do significantly explain differences in success, I am often intrigued by just how much of the variance is often left unexplained .

In recent years, a number of studies and books--including those by risk analyst Nassim Taleb , investment strategist Michael Mauboussin , and economist Robert Frank -- have suggested that luck and opportunity may play a far greater role than we ever realized, across a number of fields, including financial trading, business, sports, art, music, literature, and science. Their argument is not that luck is everything ; of course talent matters. Instead, the data suggests that we miss out on a really importance piece of the success picture if we only focus on personal characteristics in attempting to understand the determinants of success.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Consider some recent findings:

About half of the differences in income across people worldwide is explained by their country of residence and by the income distribution within that country,

Scientific impact is randomly distributed , with high productivity alone having a limited effect on the likelihood of high-impact work in a scientific career,

The chance of becoming a CEO is influenced by your name or month of birth ,

The number of CEOs born in June and July is much smaller than the number of CEOs born in other months,

Those with last names earlier in the alphabet are more likely to receive tenure at top departments,

The display of middle initials increases positive evaluations of people's intellectual capacities and achievements,

People with easy to pronounce names are judged more positively than those with difficult-to-pronounce names,

Females with masculine sounding names are more successful in legal careers.

The importance of the hidden dimension of luck raises an intriguing question: Are the most successful people mostly just the luckiest people in our society? If this were even a little bit true, then this would have some significant implications for how we distribute limited resources, and for the potential for the rich and successful to actually benefit society (versus benefiting themselves by getting even more rich and successful).

In an attempt to shed light on this heavy issue, the Italian physicists Alessandro Pluchino and Andrea Raspisarda teamed up with the Italian economist Alessio Biondo to make the first ever attempt to quantify the role of luck and talent in successful careers . In their  prior work, they warned against a "naive meritocracy", in which people actually fail to give honors and rewards to the most competent people because of their underestimation of the role of randomness among the determinants of success. To formally capture this phenomenon, they proposed a " toy mathematical model " that simulated the evolution of careers of a collective population over a worklife of 40 years (from age 20-60).

Initial setup of simulations (N=1000 agents) . Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018

The Italian researchers stuck a large number of hypothetical individuals ("agents") with different degrees of "talent" into a square world and let their lives unfold over the course of their entire worklife. They defined talent as whatever set of personal characteristics allow a person to exploit lucky opportunities (I've argued elsewhere  that this is a reasonable definition of talent). Talent can include traits such as intelligence, skill, motivation, determination, creative thinking, emotional intelligence, etc. The key is that more talented people are going to be more likely to get the most 'bang for their buck' out of a given opportunity (see here for support of this assumption).

All agents began the simulation with the same level of success (10 "units"). Every 6 months, individuals were exposed to a certain number of lucky events (in green) and a certain amount of unlucky events (in red). Whenever a person encountered an unlucky event, their success was reduced in half, and whenever a person encountered a lucky event, their success doubled proportional to their talent (to reflect the real-world interaction between talent and opportunity).

What did they find? Well, first they replicated the well known " Pareto Principle ", which predicts that a small number of people will end up achieving the success of most of the population (Richard Koch refers to it as the " 80/20 principle "). In the final outcome of the 40-year simulation, while talent was normally distributed, success was not. The 20 most successful individuals held 44% of the total amount of success, while almost half of the population remained under 10 units of success (which was the initial starting condition). This is consistent with real-world data, although there is some suggestion that in the real world, wealth success is even more unevenly distributed, with just eight men owning the same wealth as the poorest half of the world .

Normal Distribution of Talent. Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018

Highly Skewed Distribution of Success . Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018

Although such an unequal distribution may seem unfair, it might be justifiable if it turned out that the most successful people were indeed the most talented/competent. So what did the simulation find? On the one hand, talent wasn't irrelevant to success. In general, those with greater talent had a higher probability of increasing their success by exploiting the possibilities offered by luck. Also, the most successful agents were mostly at least average in talent. So talent mattered.

However, talent was definitely not sufficient because the most talented individuals were rarely the most successful. In general, mediocre-but-lucky people were much more successful than more-talented-but-unlucky individuals. The most successful agents tended to be those who were only slightly above average in talent but with a lot of luck in their lives.

Consider the evolution of success for the most successful person and the least successful person in one of their simulations:

Evolution  of Success for the Most Successful and Least Successful Individuals . Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018

As you can see, the highly successful person in green had a series of very lucky events in their life, whereas the least successful person in red (who was even more talented than the other person) had an unbearable number of unlucky events in their life. As the authors note, "even a great talent becomes useless against the fury of misfortune."

Talent loss is obviously unfortunate, to both the individual and to society. So what can be done so that those most capable of capitalizing on their opportunities are given the opportunities they most need to thrive? Let's turn to that next.

Stimulating Serendipity

Many meritocratic strategies used to assign honors, funds, or rewards are often based on the past success of the person. Selecting individuals in this way creates a state of affairs in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (often referred to as the " Matthew effect "). But is this the most effective strategy for maximizing potential? Which is a more effective funding strategy for maximizing impact to the world: giving large grants to a few previously successful applicants, or a number of smaller grants to many average-successful people? This is a fundamental question about distribution of resources, which needs to be informed by actual data.

Consider a study conducted by Jean-Michel Fortin and David Currie, who looked at whether larger grants lead to larger discoveries. They found a positive, but only very small relationship between funding and impact (as measured by four indices relating to scientific publications). What's more, those who received a second grant were not more productive than those who only received a first grant, and impact was generally a decelerating function of funding.

The authors suggest that funding strategies that focus more on targeting diversity than "excellence" are likely to be more productive to society. In a more recent study , researchers looked at the funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Quebec over a fifteen year period. They concluded that "both in terms of the quantity of papers produced and of their scientific impact, the concentration of research funding in the hands of a so-called 'elite' of researchers generally produces diminishing marginal returns."

Taking these sort of findings seriously, the European Research Council recently gave the biochemist Ohid Yaqub 1.7 million dollars to properly determine the extent of serendipity in science. Coming up with a multidimensional definition of serendipity, Yaqub pinned down some of the mechanisms by which serendipity in science happens, including astute observation, "controlled sloppiness" (allowing unexpected events to occur while tracking their origins), and the collaborative action of networks of scientists. This is consistent with Dean Simonton's extensive work on the role of serendipity and chance in the evolution of creative and impactful scientific discoveries.

Building on this work, the Italian team who simulated the role of luck in success went one step further in their simulation. Playing God (so to speak), they explored the effectiveness of a number of different funding strategies. They applied different strategies every five years during the 40 year worklife of each agent in the simulation. Without any funding at all, we already saw that the most successful agents were very lucky people with about average levels of talent. What happens once they introduced various funding opportunities into the simulation?

Efficiency of Different Funding Strategies . Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018

This table reveals the most efficient funding strategies over the 40 year period in descending order of efficiency (i.e., requiring the least amount of funding for the greatest return on the investment). Starting at the bottom of the list, you can see that the least effective funding strategies are those that give a certain percentage of the funding to only the already most successful individuals. The "mixed" strategies that combine giving a certain percentage to the most successful people and equally distributing the rest is a bit more effective, and distributing funds at random is even more efficient. This last finding is intriguing because it is consistent with other research suggesting that in complex social and economic contexts where chance is likely to play a role, strategies that incorporate randomness can perform better than strategies based on the "naively meritocratic" approach.

With that said, the best funding strategy of them all was one where an equal number of funding was distributed to everyone. Distributing funds at a rate of 1 unit every five years resulted in 60% of the most talented individuals having a greater than average level of success, and distributing funds at a rate of 5 units every five years resulted in 100% of the most talented individuals having an impact! This suggests that if a funding agency or government has more money available to distribute, they'd be wise to use that extra money to distribute money to everyone, rather than to only a select few. As the researchers conclude,

"[I]f the goal is to reward the most talented person (thus increasing their final level of success), it is much more convenient to distribute periodically (even small) equal amounts of capital to all individuals rather than to give a greater capital only to a small percentage of them, selected through their level of success - already reached - at the moment of the distribution."

Stimulating the Environment

This incredible Italian team didn't even stop there! Hey, if you're playing God, why not go all the way. :) They also ran simulations in which they varied the environment of the agents. Using this framework, they simulated either a very stimulating environment, rich of opportunities for everyone (like that of rich and industrialized countries such as the U.S.) as well as a much less stimulating environment, with very few opportunities (like that of Third World countries). Here's what they found:

Success of the Most Successful Individuals Living in an Environment with Rich Opportunities (top) or an Environment with Poor Opportunities (bottom) . Credit: Pluchino, Biondo, & Rapisarda 2018

Look at the difference between the outcome distribution of the environment rich in opportunities for everyone (top) from the outcome distribution of the environment poor in opportunities for everyone (bottom). In the universe simulated at the top, a number of medium to highly talented individuals were able to reach very high levels of success, and the average number of medium-highly talented individuals who reached at least above average levels of success was quite high. In contrast, in the universe simulated at the bottom of the figure, the overall level of success of the society was low, with an average of only 18 individuals able to increase their initial level of success.

The results of this elucidating simulation, which dovetail with a growing number of studies based on real-world data, strongly suggest that luck and opportunity play an underappreciated role in determining the final level of individual success. As the researchers point out, since rewards and resources are usually given to those who are already highly rewarded, this often causes a lack of opportunities for those who are most talented (i.e., have the greatest potential to actually benefit from the resources), and it doesn't take into account the important role of luck, which can emerge spontaneously throughout the creative process. The researchers argue that the following factors are all important in giving people more chances of success: a stimulating environment rich in opportunities, a good education, intensive training, and an efficient strategy for the distribution of funds and resources. They argue that at the macro-level of analysis, any policy that can influence these factors will result in greater collective progress and innovation for society (not to mention immense self-actualization of any particular individual).

© 2018  Scott Barry Kaufman , All Rights Reserved

Note: One suggestion I made to the Italian team is for their future simulations to take into account the real-world finding that talent develops over time , and is not a fixed quantity of the individual. They graciously said this was a valid point and would definitely take that into consideration in their future work.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Moral luck occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control. Bernard Williams writes, “when I first introduced the expression moral luck , I expected to suggest an oxymoron” (Williams 1993, 251). Indeed, immunity from luck has been thought by many to be part of the very essence of morality. And yet, as Williams (1976) and Thomas Nagel (1979) showed in their now classic pair of articles, it appears that our everyday judgments and practices commit us to the existence of moral luck. The problem of moral luck arises because we seem to be committed to the general principle that we are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control (call this the “Control Principle”). At the same time, when it comes to countless particular cases, we morally assess agents for things that depend on factors that are not in their control. And making the situation still more problematic is the fact that a very natural line of reasoning suggests that it is impossible to morally assess anyone for anything if we adhere to the Control Principle.

1. Generating the Problem of Moral Luck and Kinds of Luck

2.1 the justification of laws and punishment, 2.2 egalitarianism, 3. kinds of moral assessment, 4.1.1 denying moral luck and preserving the centrality of morality, 4.1.2 denying moral luck and setting aside morality in favor of ethics, 4.2.1 accepting moral luck and revising our practices.

• 4.2.2 Accepting Moral Luck without Revision

4.3 Incoherence

5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

The idea that morality is immune from luck finds inspiration in Kant:

A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself… Even if, by a special disfavor of fortune or by the niggardly provision of a step motherly nature, this will should wholly lack the capacity to carry out its purpose—if with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing and only the good will were left (not, of course, as a mere wish but as the summoning of all means insofar as they are in our control)—then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself. Usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add anything to this worth nor take anything away from it (Kant 1784 [1998], 4:394).

Thomas Nagel approvingly cites this passage in the opening of his 1979 article, “Moral Luck.” Nagel’s article began as a reply to Williams’ paper of the same name, and the two articles together articulated in a new and powerful way a challenge for anyone wishing to defend the Kantian idea that an important aspect of morality is immune from luck, or independent of what is outside of our control.

To see exactly how the challenge arises, let us begin with the Control Principle:

(CP) We are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control.

It is intuitively compelling, as is the following corollary of it:

(CP-Corollary) Two people ought not to be morally assessed differently if the only other differences between them are due to factors beyond their control.

Not only are the Control Principle and its corollary plausible in themselves, they also seem to find support in our reactions to particular cases. For example, if we find out that a woman who has just stepped on your toes was simply pushed, then our temptation to blame her is likely to evaporate. It seems that the reason for this is our unwillingness to hold someone responsible for what is not in her control. Similarly, if two drivers have taken all precautions, and are abiding by all the rules of the road, and in one case, a dog runs in front of the car and is killed, and not in the other, then, given that the dog’s running out was not something over which either driver had control, it seems that we are reluctant to blame one driver more than the other. Although we might expect different reactions from the two drivers, it does not seem that one is deserving of a worse moral assessment than the other.

At the same time, it seems that there are countless cases in which the objects of our moral assessments do depend on factors beyond agents’ control. Even though “moral luck” seems to be an oxymoron, everyday judgments suggest that there is a phenomenon of moral luck after all. As Nagel defines it, “Where a significant aspect of what someone does depends on factors beyond his control, yet we continue to treat him in that respect as an object of moral judgment, it can be called moral luck” (Nagel 1979, 59). To bring out the conflict with the Control Principle even more starkly, we will understand moral luck as follows:

(ML) moral luck occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment, despite the fact that a significant aspect of what he is assessed for depends on factors beyond his control.

It is important to note that not all recent discussions of moral luck have accepted this characterization of moral luck. Some recent work has instead taken moral luck to be a species of a larger genus of luck, of which there are other species, as well, such as epistemic luck, or offered a conceptual analysis of a very general everyday concept of luck. Such an approach does not build in the idea that luck is opposed to control. (See Pritchard 2006, and Coffman (2015), who argues in favor of a particular unified analysis of luck for agency and epistemology, but also recognizes that there are other notions of luck in play in some debates.) Considering moral luck alongside other phenomena that go under the label “luck” might be fruitful in some ways, but in order to engage in the debate as found in Kant and Nagel and many others, moral luck must be understood as in contrast to control.

We certainly seem to be committed to the existence of moral luck. For example, we seem to blame those who have murdered more than we blame those who have merely attempted murder, even if the reason for the lack of success in the second case is that the intended victim unexpectedly tripped and fell to the floor just as the bullet arrived at head-height. Since whether the intended victim tripped or not is not something in control of either would-be murderer, we appear to violate the Control Principle and its corollary.

It might be tempting to respond at this point that what people are really responsible for are their intentions or their “willings,” and that we are thus wrong to offer different moral assessments in this pair of cases. Adam Smith (1790/1976), for example, advocates this position, writing that

To the intention or affection of the heart, therefore, to the propriety and impropriety, to the beneficence or hurtfulness of the design, all praise or blame, all approbation or disapprobation, of any kind, which can justly be bestowed upon any action, must ultimately belong. (II.iii.intro.3.)

This is a tempting response, and others have followed Smith in defending something like it (e.g., Khoury 2019). But it faces difficulties of its own. First, as we will see, the would-be murderers offer only one of many cases in which our intuitive moral judgment appears to depend on “results” beyond one’s intentions, as Smith himself noted (II.iii.intro.5). And even more importantly, luck can affect even our “willings” and other internal states (Feinberg 1970, 34–38). As Nagel develops the point, there are other types of luck that affect not only our actions but also every intention we form and every exertion of our wills. Further, once these kinds of luck are recognized, we will see that not one of the factors on which agents’ actions depend is immune to luck.

Nagel identifies four kinds of luck in all: resultant, circumstantial, constitutive, and causal.

Resultant Luck . Resultant luck is luck in the way things turn out. Examples include the pair of would-be murderers just mentioned as well as the pair of innocent drivers described above. In both cases, each member of the pair has exactly the same intentions, has made the same plans, and so on, but things turn out very differently and so both are subject to resultant luck. If in either case, we can correctly offer different moral assessments for each member of the pair, then we have a case of resultant moral luck. Williams offers a case of “decision under uncertainty”: a somewhat fictionalized Gauguin, who chooses a life of painting in Tahiti over a life with his family, not knowing whether he will be a great painter. In one scenario, he goes on to become a great painter, and in another, he fails. According to Williams, we will judge Gauguin differently depending on the outcome. Cases of negligence provide another important kind of resultant luck. Imagine that two otherwise conscientious people have forgotten to have their brakes checked recently and experience brake failure, but only one of whom finds a child in the path of his car. If in any of these cases we correctly offer differential moral assessments, then again we have cases of resultant moral luck. Circumstantial luck . Circumstantial luck is luck in the circumstances in which one finds oneself. For example, consider Nazi collaborators in 1930s Germany who are condemned for committing morally atrocious acts, even though their very presence in Nazi Germany was due to factors beyond their control (Nagel 1979). Had those very people been transferred by the companies for which they worked to Argentina in 1929, perhaps they would have led exemplary lives. If we correctly morally assess the Nazi collaborators differently from their imaginary counterparts in Argentina, then we have a case of circumstantial moral luck. Constitutive luck . Constitutive luck is luck in who one is, or in the traits and dispositions that one has. Since our genes, care-givers, peers, and other environmental influences all contribute to making us who we are (and since we have no control over these) it seems that who we are is at least largely a matter of luck. Since how we act is partly a function of who we are, the existence of constitutive luck entails that what actions we perform depends on luck, too. For example, if we correctly blame someone for being cowardly or self-righteous or selfish, when his being so depends on factors beyond his control, then we have a case of constitutive moral luck. Further, if a person acts on one of these very character traits over which he lacks control by, say, running away instead of helping to save his child, and we correctly blame him for so acting, then we also have a case of constitutive moral luck. Thus, since both actions and agents are objects of moral assessment, constitutive moral luck undermines the Control Principle when it comes to the assessment of both actions and agents. Causal luck . Finally, there is causal luck, or luck in “how one is determined by antecedent circumstances” (Nagel 1979, 60). Nagel points out that the appearance of causal moral luck is essentially the classic problem of free will. The problem of free will to which Nagel refers arises because it seems that our actions—and even the “stripped-down acts of the will”—are consequences of what is not in our control. If this is so, then neither our actions nor our willing are free. And since freedom is often thought to be necessary for moral responsibility, we cannot be morally responsible even for our willings. Sometimes the problem is thought to arise only if determinism is true, but this is not the case. Even if it turns out that determinism is false, but events are still caused by prior events according to probabilistic laws, the way that one is caused to act by antecedent circumstances would seem to be equally outside of one’s control (e.g., Pereboom 2002, 41–54, Watson 1982, 9). Finally, it is worth noting that some have viewed the inclusion of the category of causal luck as redundant, since what it covers is completely captured by the combination of constitutive and circumstantial luck (Latus 2001).

Upon reflection, it seems that we morally assess people differently for what they do (or who they are) when their actions and personal qualities depend on luck of all kinds. And it is not only in unusual cases like that of would-be murderers that people are subject to the various types of luck. For example, whether any of our intentions are realized in action or not depends on some factors outside of our control. Thus, if resultant luck undermines our assessments of moral responsibility, as the Control Principle suggests, then many of our everyday judgments ought to be abandoned. Still, applying the Control Principle to resultant luck continues to leave open the possibility that we are correctly assessed for things like our intentions, just not for the results of our intentions. But consideration of the other sorts of luck leads to more and more global skepticism about moral assessment. For example, circumstantial luck affects even our intentions, so it seems that we cannot be assessed in virtue of our intentions. Once again, though, we might still be able to retain the idea that we are morally assessable for something, even if only for what we would have intended in various situations. But reflection on constitutive luck and causal luck can make it seem as though we cannot be properly assessed for anything we do. For if who we are and therefore what we would have done are themselves subject to luck, then according to the Control Principle, we cannot be properly assessed even for those things. What is left as an object of assessment? As Nagel puts it, “[t]he area of genuine agency, and therefore of legitimate moral judgment, seems to shrink under this scrutiny to an extensionless point” (1979, 66.) He goes on,

I believe that in a sense the problem has no solution, because something in the idea of agency is incompatible with actions being events, or people being things. But as the external determinants of what someone has done are gradually exposed, in their effect on consequences, character, and choice itself, it becomes gradually clear that actions are events and people things. Eventually nothing remains which can be ascribed to the responsible self, and we are left with nothing but a portion of the larger sequence of events, which can be deplored or celebrated, but not blamed or praised (1979, 68).

If this is right, then we could not simply revise our everyday moral judgments in accordance with a more diligent application of the Control Principle; at best, if we adhere to the Control Principle, we should refrain from making any moral judgments. Not everyone shares this skepticism, and there is naturally a wide variety of responses to the challenge of how to reconcile our adherence to the Control Principle with our everyday judgments that commit us to the existence of moral luck. At stake are not only our seemingly ubiquitous practices of moral praise and blame, but also the resolution of other central debates in ethics, philosophy of law, and political philosophy.

2. Implications for Other Debates

Before turning to proposed solutions to the problem, it will be helpful to see just what rests on resolving the problem of moral luck.

Whether or not we accept, reject, or qualify the Control Principle has implications for the law, and for punishment in particular. The question of how resultant luck should affect punishment has been debated at least since Plato (The Laws IX, 876–877). According to the Control Principle, if results are not in our control, then our attributions of moral responsibility and blameworthiness should not be affected by them. And if, in addition, justified punishment tracks moral blameworthiness, then the degree of punishment allotted for crimes should not be based even in part on results. H.L.A. Hart puts this conclusion in the form of a rhetorical question: “Why should the accidental fact that an intended harmful outcome has not occurred be a ground for punishing less a criminal who may be equally dangerous and equally wicked?” (1968, 129). It turns out, however, that the idea that results should not be taken into account in determining punishment is in direct tension with a variety of criminal laws, including, for example, the differential punishment accorded attempted murder and murder in the United States. It is also in direct tension with parts of the tort law in the United States such as the differential treatment accorded the merely negligent person and the negligent person whose negligence leads to harm. Interestingly, however, the Model Penal Code takes a different approach for at least some offenses, prescribing the same punishment for attempts and completed crimes. (Model Penal Code, §2.05, cmt. at 293–95; Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985). And this approach is favored by a number of legal theorists.

Now the line of reasoning sketched above that rejects any tracking of results in punishment depends not only on the Control Principle (or a modified version of it), but also on a thesis that limits justified punishment to the proper objects of moral blameworthiness. Both of these premises can, and have been, questioned. But the debate in legal theory about whether results should make a difference to punishment very often centers on the premise about control, and thus, the status of the Control Principle has important implications for the legal debates concerning differential punishment for attempts and completed crimes. (On this debate, see, for example, Alexander, Ferzan, & Morse 2009, Davis 1986, Feinberg 1995, Herman 1995, Kadish 1994, Lewis 1989, Moore 1997 and 2009, Ripstein 1999, and Yaffe 2010. On luck and tort law, see Waldron 1995, and for a wide-ranging discussion of moral luck and the law, Enoch 2010.)

It is also important to note that the implications of the status of the Control Principle for the law are not limited to results. For example, if we accept the Control Principle in unqualified form, and accept the premise constraining justified punishment to that for which people are morally blameworthy, then it might turn out that no one is morally blameworthy and so no punishment is ever justified.

Whether or not the Control Principle is true either in its general or in some restricted form also has implications for the debate over what, if anything, justifies egalitarianism. Let us understand egalitarianism as the view that a distribution of relevant goods that is more equal over a relevant population is more just than one that is less equal. Inspired by the work of John Rawls, some egalitarians have invoked the idea that our constitution and circumstances are out of our control in the justification of their view. For example, Rawls writes that

The existing distribution of income and wealth, say, is the cumulative effect of prior distributions of natural assets—that is, natural talents and abilities—as these have been developed or left unrealized, and their use favored or disfavored over time by social circumstances and such chance contingencies as accident and good fortune. Intuitively, the most obvious injustice of the system of natural liberty is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors so arbitrary from a moral point of view. (Rawls 1971, p. 72.)

Egalitarians who treat luck in this way are sometimes called “luck egalitarians.” (For examples of various versions of luck egalitarianism, see Arneson 1997, 2001, Cohen 1989, Dworkin 1981 and 2000, Roemer 1996; for criticisms see Nozick 1974, Anderson 1999, Hurley 2001, and Scheffler 2003.) It is often difficult to see exactly how the appeal to constitutive luck is meant to function in various arguments for egalitarianism. There are two very general ways the reasoning might go: a “positive” and a “negative” way (Nozick 1974). According to one positive line of reasoning, it is first observed that one’s natural talents, circumstances of birth, and so on are things that are beyond one’s control, and at the same time, if a natural “free market” system operates, these circumstances give rise to many advantages and disadvantages relative to others. By the Control Principle, one is not responsible for these advantages and disadvantages. Further, it is wrong for people to have advantages and disadvantages for which they are not responsible. Therefore, justice requires a more egalitarian redistribution of goods to rectify this wrong. Although this line of reasoning has received much criticism, it is arguable that a weaker, and so less vulnerable “negative” line of reasoning is really behind much of luck egalitarianism (see, for example, Arneson 2001).

The “negative” luck argument for egalitarianism is really a rebuttal to the objection that people should not be deprived in the name of egalitarianism of what they have earned. The argument goes like this: Take as a starting point a presumption in favor of equality of condition. Next observe, as before, that one’s natural talents, circumstances of birth, and so on are things beyond one’s control, and, again, that these factors often give rise to advantages and disadvantages relative to others. Therefore, by the Control Principle, one is not responsible for many advantages and disadvantages. If one is not responsible for these, then one is not deserving of them. And if one is not deserving of them, then it is not wrong to redistribute goods in a more egalitarian way that eliminates many advantages and disadvantages.

The explicit appeal to the Control Principle in both of these lines of reasoning shows ways in which the plausibility of Luck Egalitarianism depends on the resolution of the problem of moral luck. It is also notable that some luck egalitarians attempt to draw a line between certain sorts of luck; for example, it is sometimes argued that if one suffers a great financial setback due to one’s choice to engage in high-stakes gambling, then there might be circumstances in which it would be wrong to seek to treat one in the same way as another whose equal suffering was brought on by, say, a devastating earthquake. It might be that underlying this move is acceptance of a restricted version of the Control Principle; for example, one that allows that one can be responsible for one’s choices and their expected consequences, but not for the results of one’s choices that are in large part beyond one’s control. Here, too, it is clear that how one resolves the problem of moral luck—whether one rejects the possibility of moral luck altogether, accepts it in all forms, or accepts certain kinds and not others—has implications for the ultimate success of Luck Egalitarianism. Thus, much is at stake in the resolution of the problem of moral luck. Before turning to suggested solutions, a brief bit of ground-clearing will be necessary.

The Control Principle states that we are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are morally assessed for is under our control. But it is important to recognize that there are many different kinds of moral assessment. For example, there are judgments about a person’s character, for example, as “good” or “bad” (sometimes called “aretaic” judgments). There are also judgments of states of affairs that concern people’s actions as “good” or “bad” (sometimes called “axiological” judgments. Then there are judgments of actions as “right” or “wrong” (sometimes called “deontic” judgments). There are also judgments of responsibility, blame, and praise. As we will see, this category can be further divided in various ways.

Distinguishing between the various notions of moral assessment allows for the possibility that the Control Principle should be read as applying to some, but not to other forms of moral assessment. For example, some argue that there is a perfectly acceptable form of moral luck which does not conflict with the true spirit of the Control Principle, namely, luck in what you are responsible for (e.g., Richards 1986, Zimmerman 2002). For example, it will be readily admitted by many that the successful murderer can be responsible for a death, whereas the one who unsuccessfully attempts murder is not responsible for a death . At the same time, both could be equally responsible, or blameworthy, in degree (Zimmerman 2002, 560) or both could be equal in their moral worth (Richards 1986, 171, Greco 1995, 91). If the most important kind of moral assessment is, say, one’s moral worth, then the Control Principle can be suitably restricted to apply to assessments of moral worth. As will become clear, a number of responses to the problem of moral luck appeal to the general strategy of distinguishing among different forms of moral assessment. Most focus on two families of moral assessment: (i) the family that includes responsibility, blame, and praise for actions and/or for one’s own traits or dispositions, and (ii) the family that includes the notion of the moral worth of an agent and the moral quality of her character. (But see Zimmerman 2006 for a recent discussion of luck and deontic judgments.)

4. Responding to the Problem: Three Approaches

There are three general approaches to responding to the problem of moral luck: (i) to deny that there is moral luck despite appearances, (ii) to accept the existence of moral luck while rejecting or restricting the Control Principle, or (iii) to argue that it is simply incoherent to accept or deny the existence of some type(s) of moral luck, so that with respect to at least the relevant types of moral luck, the problem of moral luck does not arise.

Some who respond to the problem of moral luck take a single approach to all kinds of luck. But many take a mixed approach; that is, they embrace one approach for one kind of luck and another approach for another kind of luck, or address only a certain type(s) of luck, while remaining silent about the other types. Is taking a mixed approach legitimate? After all, it seems that if the Control Principle is true, then there is no moral luck, and if it is false, then there can be any type of moral luck. But, alas, matters are not necessarily so simple. It is possible at least in theory to offer a principled reason for qualifying the Control Principle so that it applies only to certain sorts of factors and not others. At the same time, as we will see, providing just such a principled way of distinguishing certain kinds of luck from others turns out to be a formidable task.

Most of those who deny that one or more types of moral luck exist are those who seek to preserve the centrality of morality in our lives. But it is also possible to adopt a position of denying the possibility of moral luck while at the same time showing that the Control Principle, while true, prevents morality from playing the central role we might have hoped for it. Something like this position seems to be the one Williams adopts in his (1993) “Postscript” to “Moral Luck,” for example.

Let us begin with the first and larger group of those who embrace the approach of denying the existence of moral luck. One of their main tasks is to explain away the appearance of moral luck. A second main task is to paint a plausible and coherent picture of morality that avoids luck.

An important tool for those who wish to explain away the existence of moral luck is what Latus (2000) calls the “epistemic argument” (see Richards, Rescher, Rosebury, and Thomson). To see how it goes, let us begin by focusing on resultant luck. Why do we feel differently about the successful and unsuccessful murderers? Because, according to the epistemic argument, we rarely know exactly what a person’s intentions are or the strength of her commitment to a course of action. One (admittedly fallible) indicator is whether she succeeds or not. In particular, if someone succeeds, that is some evidence that the person was seriously committed to carrying out a fully formed plan. The same evidence is not usually available when the plan is not carried out. Thus, rather than indicating our commitment to cases of resultant moral luck, our differential treatment of successful and unsuccessful murderers indicates our different epistemic situations with respect to each. If we were in the unrealistic situation of knowing that both agents had exactly the same intentions, the same strength of commitment to their plans, and so on, then we would no longer be inclined to treat them differently. Thomson represents a number of those who employ this strategy when she asks, “Well do we regard Bert [a negligent driver who causes a death] with an indignation that would be out of place in respect to Carol [an equally negligent driver who does not]? Even after we have been told about how bad luck figured in his history and good luck in hers?” And Thomson answers: “I do not find it in myself to do so” (1993, 205). Not everyone shares this intuition, however, as we will see in the next section.

The epistemic argument can be extended to circumstantial luck. Consider again the Nazi sympathizer, and a counterpart who moved in 1929 to Argentina on business. The counterpart has exactly the same dispositions as the Nazi sympathizer, but lives a quiet and harmless life in Argentina. According to this line of reasoning, while it is true that the counterpart is not responsible for the same deeds as the Nazi sympathizer, he should be judged precisely for what he would have done. Richards argues that we do judge people for what they would have done, but that what they do is often our strongest evidence for what they would have done . As a result, given our limited knowledge, we might not be entitled to treat the counterpart in the same way as the Nazi sympathizer, even though they are equally morally deserving of such treatment (Richards 1986, 174 ff.). Thus, circumstantial luck, like resultant luck, affects the basis available to us when we judge agents, but does not affect what those agents deserve.

It is hard to see how the argument can be extended further to cover constitutive or causal luck. But even if the epistemic argument is limited in this way, it can still be part of a good overall strategy of responding to the problem of moral luck insofar as it is possible to take a mix-and-match approach to different kinds of luck.

A second strategy for explaining away the appearance of moral luck is most naturally applied to resultant luck. Those who adopt this strategy argue that it is understandable or even appropriate to feel differently about the driver who kills a child than about the one who does not. What is not appropriate is to offer different moral assessments of their behavior (e.g., Rosebury, Richards, Wolf, Thomson).

Williams elucidates a notion of “agent-regret,” a sentiment whose “constitutive thought” is a subject’s first-person thought that it would have been much better had she done otherwise. Agent regret also requires a certain sort of expression that is different from that of what we might call “bystander regret.” For example, it might include the willingness to compensate a person who was harmed by one’s actions. In the case of a lorry driver who, through no fault of his own, runs over a child, Williams writes, “we feel sorry for the driver, but that sentiment co-exists with, indeed presupposes, that there is something special about his relation to this happening, something which cannot merely be eliminated by the consideration that it was not his fault” (1976 [1993b, 43]).

It is possible to take this thought still further and argue that it is reasonable to expect and perhaps even demand that one who kills the child respond in a different way from the other. For example, Wolf argues that there is a “nameless virtue” which consists in “taking responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences” (2001, 13). It is the virtue of taking responsibility in some sense for the consequences of one’s actions, even if one is not responsible for them. In some ways it is akin to the virtue of generosity in that it “involves a willingness to give more…that justice requires” (14). To take another example, Richards suggests that we often have negative feelings about those who cause harm, even when we realize that they are not deserved, and that these can be feelings we ought to have. For example, it ought to be distressing for a parent to encounter a girl who accidentally dropped your baby, even if you know that no one could have held on (1986, 178–79). The feelings that both agents and observers naturally do or even ought to have can easily be confused with judgments that commit us to the existence of moral luck. Yet once we distinguish these legitimate feelings from moral judgments, we can and should eliminate the judgments that entail a commitment to moral luck. Again, this strategy is most naturally applied to resultant luck.

Recently, critics of this strategy have objected to it on a variety of grounds. For example, it has been argued against Wolf’s view, in particular, that once we acknowledge the appropriateness of greater self-blame in cases of greater harm, no good reason for denying moral luck remains, and indeed we have good reason for accepting it. (See Moore 2009, 31 ff.) It has also been argued that Wolf’s description of our phenomenology is at best incomplete: it is not merely that we wish people to blame themselves more when they cause greater harm, but that we judge them to be more blameworthy. Our judgments of greater responsibility also require explaining away. (See Domsky 2004.)

A variant of this strategy employs the idea that one can justify differential treatment of, say, the negligent driver who hits a child and one who does not, even if both are equally morally blameworthy. For example, Henning Jensen (1984) argues that while both are equally culpable, there are consequentialist reasons for not subjecting the first negligent driver to the same degree of blame behavior . Since we all take some risks, and some are less likely to lead to harm than others, to blame everyone for simply taking such risks would require such a high standard of care as to risk destroying our ability to function as moral agents. On the other hand, requiring punishment for or compensation from those who do cause harm is required to provide a “restorative value” for those agents and preserve their integrity.

A third strategy is to point out that we mistakenly infer moral luck from legal luck. While there might be good reasons for the law to treat people differently even if what they do depends on factors beyond their control, we (understandably) make the mistaken inference that the law directly reflects correct moral assessment in such cases. For example, there are a number of reasons why the law might justifiably punish successful crimes more severely than merely attempted ones, including the balancing of deterrence and privacy (Rosebury 521–24). If reasons like this provide the justification for the differential treatment of such cases in the law, then it would indeed be wrong to infer that the successful and unsuccessful murderers are deserving of different moral assessments. However, the fact that we do make such a mistaken inference explains why we often commit ourselves to the existence of moral luck, when reflection can show that doing so is a mistake.

In addition to explaining how there can be an appearance of moral luck, despite the fact that there is not any, some of those who wish to deny the existence of moral luck take on the task of offering a coherent and plausible picture of morality that avoids luck.

Some of those engaged in the free will debate have denied the existence of causal, and perhaps also of constitutive, moral luck by offering a distinctive metaphysical account of human agency. (See, for example, Chisholm, Taylor, Clarke, and O’Connor. See also Pereboom who argues that such an account is coherent, but not true.) The view is known as “Agent-Causal Libertarianism,” and the basic idea is that agents themselves cause actions or at least the formation of intentions, without their being caused to do so. Thus, the agent herself, exercising her causal powers, is an undetermined cause of her intentions. On some agent causal views, only the agent, as opposed to events caused by other events is the cause of the intention (e.g., O’Connor), while on another view, the agent acts in tandem with events that probabilistically cause the action (Clarke 1993). Particularly on the first sort of view, we seem to avoid the conclusion that our actions must depend on causal factors that are beyond our control. At the same time, it is not clear exactly how the move to agent causation is supposed to restore the kind of control we seek. For we might ask why we should consider the agent cause in control of her actions, while we can imagine that other substance causes (e.g., tables or billiard balls) would not be in control of what they cause. It might be stipulated that the exercise of the particular causal power to cause intentions simply is an exercise of control, but we need further details to see that the challenge has not been stipulated away. (See Clarke 2005 and Mele 2006 for recent discussions of agent causation and luck.) It is also important to note that Agent-Causal views are consistent with actions and even intentions depending in part on factors beyond one’s control, such as the reasons people have available at the time of decision or action.

In a very different way, as we have seen, it is possible to take on a part of the task of describing a coherent picture of luck-free morality by identifying an object of moral assessment in the case of circumstantial luck. For example, Richards suggests that people should be assessed for what they would have done in different circumstances. More fundamentally, people should be assessed for their characters, of which their actions in different circumstances are manifestations.

Zimmerman begins where Richards leaves off, proposing to pursue “the implications of the denial of the relevance of luck to moral responsibility” to their “logical conclusion” (2002, 559). With the possible exception of some kinds of constitutive luck, Zimmerman rejects the possibility of moral luck of all four kinds while proposing a coherent picture of moral assessment. He rejects the possibility of resultant luck by first acknowledging that a man who (by luck) succeeds in his plan to cause harm is responsible for more things than one who (by luck) fails to carry out an identical plan. But, according to Zimmerman, we must distinguish between scope and degree of responsibility. Both men are responsible to the same degree, and it is this kind of moral assessment to which the Control Principle ought to apply. When it comes to circumstantial luck, things are more difficult. For when it comes to cases like those of resultant luck in which we want to hold people responsible, we can find something to hold them responsible for, namely, their plans or intentions or attempts. However, when it comes to cases of circumstantial luck, such as the Nazi collaborator and his counterpart, there are no counterpart plans or intentions or attempts that have simply failed to come to fruition. Zimmerman suggests that there is nothing that we hold the counterpart responsible for; in this case, the scope of the agent’s responsibility is 0. But we can and should still hold him responsible to the same degree as the Nazi sympathizer. He is responsible tout court even if he is not responsible for anything (2002, 565). He is responsible in the sense that his moral record is affected for better or worse in virtue of something about him. For there is something in virtue of which he is responsible, namely, his being such that he would have freely performed the very same wrong actions had he been in the same circumstances as the Nazi sympathizer.

This reasoning can be extended still further to cover the case of constitutive and even one kind of causal luck. Suppose that Georg does not kill Henrik, and George does kill Henry. Further suppose that “the reason for Georg’s not killing Henrik was that he was too timid, or that he had a thick skin and Henrik’s insults did not upset him in the way that Henry’s insults upset George, or that he was deaf and simply did not hear the insults that Henrik hurled his way. If it is nonetheless true that Georg would have freely shot and killed Henrik but for some such feature of the case over which he had no control, then, I contend, he is just as responsible, in virtue of this fact, as George is” (2002, 565). Zimmerman acknowledges that there are features of one’s constitution that are essential to who one is, although he denies that timidity, thick-skinnedness, and so on count among them. However, if such features are essential, then it will not be true to say that had Georg lacked them, he would have freely killed Henrik. Since Georg is responsible, on Zimmerman’s view, precisely in virtue of such counterfactuals being true, he would be absolved of responsibility if such features were essential to him. For this reason, Zimmerman concedes that “the role that luck plays in the determination of moral responsibility may not be entirely eliminable…” (2002, 575).

Finally, Zimmerman goes on to claim that his reasoning applies even to cases in which a person’s actions are causally determined. If it is true that, say, Georg would have killed Henrik if his deterministic causal history, over which he has no control, had been different, then Georg is as responsible as he would have been had he killed Henrik in a world that was not determined. The upshot of the application of Zimmerman’s reasoning is that we are all responsible, blameworthy, and even praiseworthy in ways we have never imagined. If Zimmerman is right, there are countless counterfactuals that apply to each and every one of us, in virtue of which we are responsible to one degree or another. The view thus takes the Control Principle extremely seriously, and applies it in the broadest possible way. The price we pay for “taking luck seriously” is that our everyday moral judgments are, if not always mistaken, at the very least radically incomplete.

A number of objections can be raised to Zimmerman’s view, including (i) that at least large classes of the counterfactuals in virtue of which he thinks people are responsible lack truth value (e.g., Adams 1977, Nelkin 2004, Zimmerman 2002, 572, and Zimmerman 2015), and (ii) that he is simply mistaken that one can be responsible without being responsible for anything. A third sort of objection takes the form of a challenge to offer a precise schema of the relevant counterfactuals that can plausibly account for the feature of agents in virtue of which they are responsible to the same degree as others who are blameworthy for wrongful acts..

Hanna (2014) poses this third sort of objection by first trying to identify a general form of such a counterfactual. For example, he proposes as a first pass:

(G) If an agent would freely perform some action Ø if she were in circumstances C, then her degree of responsibility is the same as it would have been if she had freely Ø-ed in C.

But such a counterfactual schema cannot be correct. For consider the following case: Jimmy promised his spouse to stop eating at the local McDonald’s. But were he to drive by it while it is open, he would [freely] succumb to temptation and break his promise. He avoids driving by the McDonald’s so as not to break his promise. Surely Jimmy is not as blameworthy as he would have been if he had driven by the McDonald’s and broken his promise. Thus, this counterfactual schema fails to ground the anti-luck verdict that one is equally blameworthy as someone who performed a bad act in virtue of the fact that one would have done so in the circumstances.

As Hanna recognizes, the defender of circumstantial luck can improve the counterfactual schema in various ways so as to try to avoid such counterexamples. But each improvement seems to simply bring a clever new apparent counterexample. Perhaps counterfactuals simply cannot do the job being asked of them.

Deniers of circumstantial and constitutive luck have various options in reply, however. They can continue to seek another schema for the relevant counterfactuals, or identify a more fundamental feature of agents which give rise to counterfactuals that merely serve as evidence of such a feature without carrying all of the explanatory weight themselves. Or they can point out that a person’s overall degree of blameworthiness depends not only on a single counterfactual, and point out that there might be other relevant counterfactuals that are also true of the agent, some of which might mitigate or even make the agent laudable. When one keeps all of these counterfactuals in view at the same time, it becomes much more intuitive that agents for whom an identical set of counterfactuals is true are indeed equally blameworthy (or praiseworthy). (See Zimmerman 2015.) At this point, we again seem to reach a potential clash over intuitions. For example, Hanna offers the case of Jenny who “lives in a stable, idyllic, isolated utopian society. Consequently, she hasn’t developed to a sufficient degree all the traits that would dispose her to resist tyranny. Unfortunately, for these reasons…Jenny would collaborate if she were in Nazi-Germany-like conditions.” Hanna’s intuition is that Jenny is not as culpable as an actual Nazi collaborator, whereas it seems that Zimmerman, having all the counterfactuals in view for each of the two agents, has the opposite reaction. It seems that a full adjudication of the debate will require a comparison of entire frameworks, including appeal to an even larger range of intuitions about cases, general moral principles, and explanatory power, among other things.

Even if one or more of the objections to Zimmerman’s argument are ultimately on target, his approach is very helpful in showing what an attempt to follow out the denial of moral luck to its logical conclusion looks like.

Unlike Zimmerman, most of those who adopt the denial strategy do so only for certain sorts of moral luck. By treating all sorts of luck in the same way (with the exception of constitutive luck with respect to one’s essential properties), Zimmerman challenges those who adopt this strategy to defend the drawing of the line between resultant and other sorts of luck. As we will see, this very same challenge is also issued by those who take a diametrically opposed position and accept all forms of moral luck.

Before turning to the approach of accepting the existence of moral luck, it remains to consider the view ascribed earlier to Williams’ “Postscript” (1993). Extracting Williams’ position on “Moral Luck” is a notoriously difficult task, made easier only by Williams’ own acknowledgment in the “Postscript” that his original article “may have encouraged” some misunderstandings (251). Many commentators have read Williams as advocating the position that moral luck exists and is deeply threatening to morality. There is certainly a line of reasoning in Williams’ original article that suggests this (see 37–42, 51–53). But in the Postscript, Williams makes a distinction between morality and ethics that allows him to deny the existence of moral luck, thus preserving a certain integrity for morality.

Williams understands morality to embody the Kantian conception of it described above, accepting that the essence of the Control Principle is “built into” morality so understood (1993, 252). At the same time, examples like the Gauguin case described earlier show that one can be rationally justified in one’s decision in virtue of its outcome. Further, such a case shows that our overall value judgment of someone’s decision can depend on factors beyond the control of the agent. We must conclude, then, that there is a kind of value that competes with, if not trumps, moral value. And if that is right, then we must give up “the point of morality” so understood, namely, to “provide a shelter against luck, one realm of value ( indeed, of supreme value ) that is defended against contingency” (1993, 251, emphasis mine). It seems that morality can only insulate itself from luck at the expense of foregoing supreme value. Once we acknowledge this cost, we can keep morality intact (although skeptical doubts about its ability to resist luck can still be raised), but we have lost our reason to care about it. Instead, Williams suggests, we should care about ethics , where ethics is understood to address the most general question of how we ought to live.

Questions can be raised about this line of reasoning. For example, we can ask whether there is any sense in which Williams’ Gauguin ought to have left his family, despite the fact that the result was so welcome. If there is not, then Williams has not shown that morality competes with, or is trumped by, some other value. From the other direction, we can ask whether Williams is right that morality loses its point if it is not the supreme source of value. Of course, even if Williams’ reasoning is unsound, the conclusion could still be correct, and others have offered different routes to it.

The idea that we ought to care about ethics, understood as Williams does, finds inspiration in the work of Aristotle. Aristotle is concerned with the nature of the good life in the broadest sense—in what he calls “eudaimonia,” often translated as “happiness”. Aristotle defends the idea that happiness consists in being a virtuous person over a complete life, and, in turn, the idea that being a virtuous person requires not only that one have virtuous qualities and dispositions, but also that one act on them. Luck enters into the account in at least two ways. First, on Aristotle’s account, one becomes a virtuous person by undergoing the right kind of upbringing and training. Since whether one receives this training is at least to some extent beyond one’s control, one’s ability to live a virtuous life is deeply dependent on luck. Second, the fact that being a virtuous person requires the performance of certain kinds of activities means that the world must cooperate in various ways in order for one to be truly virtuous, and so be truly happy. Aristotle writes that happiness “needs the external goods as well; for it is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without proper equipment” (1984 NE 1099a 31–33). For example, in order to engage in acts of generosity, one must have resources at one’s disposal to share. And since having the right equipment is at least to some extent a matter of circumstantial luck, the value of one’s life itself will depend in part on what is not in one’s control. On one interpretation of Aristotle, luck enters into the account in yet a third way. Acting in accordance with virtue does not suffice for happiness, on this interpretation, although it is the “dominant component” of Aristotle’s account of happiness (Irwin 1988, 445). According to this view, one must also have a minimum provision of external goods (e.g., health, security, access to resources) whose contribution to happiness is independent of their making virtuous activity possible. If this is right, then the value of one’s life will depend at least in part on factors beyond one’s control. In sum, while there is some dispute about whether Aristotle thought more than a life of virtuous activity is required for happiness, it is clear that luck plays a significant role in determining both whether people are truly virtuous and whether people’s lives are good in the broadest sense. Hence, “the fragility of goodness” (Nussbaum).

4.2 Acceptance

All of those who accept the existence of some type of moral luck reject the Control Principle and the Kantian conception of morality that embraces it. As a result, they must either explain how we can revise our moral judgments and practices in a coherent way or show that we are not committed to the Control Principle in the first place.

Some who accept luck argue that doing so requires a significant change in our moral practices. Browne (1992), for example, suggests that if the Control Principle is false, we ought not to respond to an agent’s wrongdoing with anger and blame that is “against” him, but rather with anger that does not include hostility or the desire to punish. Nevertheless, we can still respond to the successful murderer with more of the “right” kind of anger than we feel toward the unsuccessful one. One question that might be raised here is whether we are left with enough of our ordinary conception of morality to include genuine notions of blame and responsibility.

4.2.2 Accepting Moral Luck Without (As Much) Revision

Others suggest that the Control Principle does not have nearly the hold on us that Nagel and Williams assume, and that rejecting it would not change our practices in a significant way. Among these are some who focus on the free will debate and others who take on the broader problem of moral luck directly.

4.2.2.1 Accepting Moral Luck and the Free Will Debate

A large group who accept moral luck do not explicitly address the problem of moral luck as so formulated because they focus on what Nagel identifies as a narrower issue, namely, that of free will. One traditional problem of free will is posed by the following line of reasoning: if determinism is true, then no one can act freely, and, assuming that freedom is necessary for responsibility, no one can be responsible for their actions. Compatibilists have argued that we can act freely and responsibly even if determinism is true. Since most do not adopt Zimmerman’s radical account of moral assessment in which one can be responsible despite not being responsible for anything, they admit the existence of causal moral luck. If, as some have argued, causal luck is exhausted by constitutive and circumstantial luck, then they also accept that there can be these sorts of moral luck, as well.

A basic compatibilist strategy is to argue that agents can have control over their actions in the sense required for freedom and/or responsibility even if they do not control the causal determinants of those actions. For example, if one acts with the ability to act in accordance with good reasons (Wolf 1990) or if one acts with “guidance control” which consists in part of acting on a reasons-responsive mechanism for which one has taken responsibility, (Fischer and Ravizza 1998), one can be responsible for one’s actions. The key move here is to distinguish between different kinds of factors over which one has no control. If one’s actions are caused by factors that one does not control and that prevent one from having or exercising certain capacities, then one is not responsible. However, if one’s actions are caused by factors that one does not control, but that do allow one to have and exercise the relevant capacities, then one can be “in control” of one’s actions in the relevant sense, and so responsible for one’s actions.

Interestingly, compatibilists are often silent on the question of resultant and circumstantial moral luck, although these forms of luck might represent an underutilized resource for them. For if it turns out that the luck—or lack of control—delivered by determinism is but one source of luck among others, then determinism does not embody a unique obstacle to free will and responsibility, at least when it comes to control. This is to expand the application of a widely used compatibilist strategy to show that when it comes to causal luck, compatibilists are not alone.

For within the free will debate, compatibilists are not alone in accepting the existence of certain types of luck. Many libertarians assume that our actions are caused by prior events (not themselves in our control) in accordance with probabilistic laws of nature (see, for example, Kane 1996, 1999, Nozick 1981). Given this view, it is natural to conclude that if determinism is false, there is at least one kind of luck in what sort of person one decides to be and so in what actions one performs. That is, there is luck in the sense that there is no explanation as to why a person chose to be one way rather than another. At the same time, Kane, for example, denies that there must be luck in the sense that one’s choices are flukes or accidents if determinism is false. In Kane’s view, what is important is to be free from luck of the second kind. For even if one’s action is not determined, it can still be the case that the causes of one’s action are one’s own efforts and intention. And if one’s action is caused by one’s own efforts and intentions, then one’s action is not lucky in the sense of being a fluke or accident. But while this shows that one’s actions can be free of luck of an important kind, it still leaves unaddressed luck of a third kind, namely the kind at issue in the moral luck debate: the dependence of agents’ choices on factors beyond their control. And it appears that on the libertarian view in question, our choices are indeed subject to luck of this sort. (See Pereboom 2002 and 2014 for a discussion of the similar burdens shared by compatibilists and this sort of libertarian.) Only the agent-causal libertarians discussed above offer an account that aims specifically at eliminating a type of moral luck. (See Levy 2011 for an argument that no account of free will can avoid challenges concerning luck.)

4.2.2.2 Accepting Moral Luck and Distinctive Conceptions of Morality

It is also possible to argue that we are not committed to the Control Principle by taking on the problem of moral luck directly.

One strategy is to argue that moral luck is only a problem for an overly idealized conception of human agency. But once we adopt a realistic conception of human agency, the problem evaporates. Margaret Urban Walker (1991) argues in this vein that moral luck is only problematic for a conception of moral agents as “noumenal” or pure (238). In contrast, adopting a conception of morality that applies to human beings in all of their impurity will not be threatened by moral luck. According to Walker, the Control Principle is far from obvious, and we would not want to live in a world in which it held sway. The argument appears to rest on the idea that without moral luck, we would lack several virtues that allow us to help each other in most essential ways. Our very reactions to moral luck can be virtuous. For example, by accepting that our “responsibilities outrun control,” we are able to display the virtue of dependability by accepting that we will be there for our friends, even if their needs are not in our control. In contrast, pure agents who are only responsible for what they control “may not be depended on, much less morally required, to assume a share of the ongoing and massive human work of caring, healing, restoring, and cleaning-up on which each separate life and the collective one depend.” (247). Thus, if we focus on our actual moral commitments, we will see that the Control Principle is neither attractive nor necessary for morality.

It is not obvious that a world in which people denied the existence of moral luck would be as bleak as the one Walker envisions. Moral luck skeptics have material with which to question Walker’s claim. For example, those who deny resultant moral luck can still agree that agents have an obligation to minimize their risks of doing harm, and those who deny circumstantial moral luck can still agree that agents have an obligation to cultivate qualities that prepare them to act well in whatever circumstances arise.

A second strategy for rejecting the Control Principle turns Nagel’s argument on its head by taking as a starting point ordinary judgments and reactions that reveal our implicit rejection of the Control Principle. Adams (1985) adopts this strategy, drawing our attention to common practices, such as blaming people for their racist attitudes even if we do not think that such people are in control of their attitudes. Since Adams focuses primarily on agents’ states of mind that have intentional objects such as anger and self-righteousness, it is possible to see him as accepting the existence of constitutive moral luck in particular. But it is also possible to adopt the same sort of strategy for other sorts of luck, including resultant luck. Moore (1997 and 2009), for example, points to the fact that we resent those who succeed in causing harm more than those who do not, we feel greater guilt when we ourselves cause harm, and when we face decisions, we feel that the consequences of matter to the moral quality of our choices. According to Moore, the best explanation of these reactive attitudes, such as guilt and resentment, is that their objects are genuinely more blameworthy.

Now opponents who deny the existence of moral luck have ways of explaining away these phenomena. When it comes to cases of constitutive luck, like the case of the racist, they can say that we confuse agents’ blameworthiness for their character and attitudes with blameworthiness for their actions that manifest these offending attitudes and for their failure to take steps to eliminate them. On reflection, we can see that we ought to blame the racists only for their actions or omissions, not for the attitudes themselves over which they have no control. Similarly, as we saw earlier, when it comes to resultant luck, moral luck skeptics have a variety of strong alternative explanations of our judgments and emotional responses. It is possible that there is a disagreement here at the level of intuitions: some find it easier on reflection to reject moral judgments that depend on results than others. Further, those accepting resultant moral luck face a challenge of articulating a positive theory of how exactly results affect one’s moral status while at the same time accounting for our intuitions. Sverdlik (1988) argues that it is not obvious how such a challenge can be met.

At this point in the debate, those who accept moral luck offer ordinary judgments and responses in their defense, while moral luck skeptics offer alternative explanations of those practices and hold up the Control Principle itself, together with other reflective intuitive judgments, as reason to reject moral luck. We seem to have something of a stalemate. So it is no surprise that those who accept moral luck tend not to rely exclusively on ordinary judgments to make their case, but rather go on to try to undermine the Control Principle in other ways.

Another way of trying to undermine the appeal of the Control Principle itself is to show how it might be mistaken for something else that is more plausible. For example, Adams (1985) recognizes that there are limits to what we can be responsible for, and writes that the states of mind “for which we are directly responsible are those in which we are responding, consciously or unconsciously, to data that are rich enough to permit a fairly adequate ethical appreciation of the state’s intentional object and of the object’s place in the fabric of personal relationships” (26). Thus, according to Adams’ conception of morality, adherents of the Control Principle are correct in an important respect, namely, in their understanding that what one is responsible for springs in the right way from oneself . But this requirement is more general than a strict requirement of control, and although easily confused with the Control Principle, is superior to it, on this view.

Adopting the same general strategy, Moore (1997) identifies still other principles with which the Control Principle might be confused. He points out that when we use the word “luck” in the context of moral assessment, we tend not to mean that the person lacked control over what he did, but rather that what happened was far off of “some moral baseline of the normal” (213). For example, consider two would-be murderers, one of whom fires his gun and hits his target, and the other of whom fires in the same way, from the same distance, and so on, but whose bullet is deflected by an unexpected and unusually strong wind. Moore suggests that the first gunman is not “lucky” in the ordinary sense, even though it is true that whether a hurricane-force wind arose or not was not in his control. According to Moore, there is something intuitively right about morality being immune to luck, but only if we understand “luck” in the sense of “freakishness.” Further, the successful murderer is “in control” of his action in the normal sense of the word “control,” even though he doesn’t control the wind. Thus, while we do care about luck and control in making both moral and legal assessments, they aren’t Nagel’s concepts, on this view. Thus, according to Moore, there is no contradiction in our everyday commitments.

Now those who think we are naturally drawn to the Control Principle can respond by pointing out both the intuitive plausibility of the principle in the abstract and the cases described earlier that seem to support it. They might also accept that Adams and Moore have pointed out further necessary conditions for responsibility, while still maintaining that the Control Principle is true. Again, differing intuitions about cases and about the Control Principle have the potential to make a big difference to one’s view at this point.

Michael Otsuka offers yet another principle in place of the Control Principle: One is only blameworthy in cases in which one had the kind of control that would have allowed one to be entirely blameless. Consistent with this is a kind of moral luck, however: one’s blameworthiness can vary in degree as a function of harm done, where harm done may be affected by what is not in one’s control. Although one cannot be blameworthy if one lacked the control necessary to avoid blameworthiness, one’s degree of blameworthiness can increase if the risk one takes comes out badly due to circumstances one could do nothing to avoid. For example, in the case of the two assassins, both are blameworthy, but, Otsuka argues, the one who hits and kills his target is more blameworthy. In sketching the view, Otsuka draws a parallel with Dworkin’s (1981) treatment of option luck in the debate over egalitarianism. In that debate, a distinction is drawn between option luck (“a matter of ...whether someone gains or loses through accepting an isolated risk he or she should have anticipated and might have declined”) and brute luck (“a matter of how risks fall out that are not that sense...gambles).” If one’s luck is just brute-one did not assume a risk, as when one has done everything a careful driver would do, and due to sheer luck, a dog runs into the street and one drives over it-one is not blameworthy. But if one assumes a risk by knowingly and freely driving recklessly, and, as a result, one kills a dog, then one is blameworthy. And, further, one might be more blameworthy in the case in which one kills the dog than in the case in which one takes the same risk but luckily reaches home without hitting anything. It would be reasonable, on Otsuka’s view, for the dog owner whose dog is killed to be more resentful than the one whose dog escapes, and this supports the conclusion that the driver who kills the dog is more blameworthy than the one who does not.

The parallel to option and brute luck is suggestive, but a defender of the unqualified Control principle has resources here. Appealing to the distinction between scope and degree, one might grant that the reckless driver is, importantly, responsible for more things (including a death), but not more blameworthy. In fact, the parallel to the treatment of option luck in the debate about distributive justice may fit best if we are interested in what we are responsible for , rather than how responsible we are. Further, we have seen reason to think that on reflection we should not blame one reckless driver more than another. One might question Otsuka’s premise that degree of blameworthiness is to be understood in terms of appropriate degree of attitudes such as resentment (or even the weaker premise that the degree of blameworthiness tracks the appropriate degree of such attitudes). But even if we accept this premise, we might conclude that while it is understandable that one dog owner would be more resentful than the first, more resentment is not actually justified. This observation takes us back to the subtle nature of the dialectic.

In adjudicating this debate between those defending the Control Principle and those defending alternative principles, we can ask just how much weight should be given to our natural reactions to cases, and, in particular, to our reactive attitudes, such as resentment and guilt. At least in some cases, these can be tempered when we reflect explicitly on key features of cases, and our initial responses can be revised in light of these reflections, together with reflection on general principles.

Notably, there has recently been an attempt by philosophers to appeal to results from empirical psychology to explain away some set of intuitions or other, and this strategy has been applied in the area of moral luck in particular. For some examples, see Domsky (2004) and Royzman and Kumar (2004) whose explanations in different ways support the preservation of our adherence to the Control Principle, and see Enoch and Guttel (2010) for a reply to both. Psychologists and experimental philosophers have also simply tried to offer explanations of our intuitions, particularly of ones that appear to conflict as we find in the debate about moral luck. For example, see Cushman and Green (2012), who offer an explanation of apparently conflicting intuitions about moral results luck in terms of two dissociable processes, and Björnsson and Persson (2012), who offer an explanation in terms of shifting explanatory perspectives. In an interesting set of studies, Kneer and Machery (2019) found that when participants were asked for comparative judgments about pairs of scenarios, varying only in outcome, they tended to offer anti-moral luck responses, judging agents in both scenarios equally blameworthy. In contrast, in related studies in which each participant only saw one scenario without a comparison, participants’ judgments of degrees of blameworthiness varied by scenario, with the more harmful outcome scenarios receiving judgments of higher degrees of blame. However, Kneer and Machinery found that the differences in judgments in these cases was nearly entirely mediated by a disproportionate attribution of negligence to the agents in the harmful scenarios, suggesting the possibility that, when presented only with one scenario, participants read backwards from harm to a morally significant attribution of features in the agents. If this is correct, then it may not be outcome per se that provides the grounds of differential judgments, but, rather, a distinct morally salient feature of agents that is often associated with outcome. Taken together, Kneer and Machery’s studies support the idea that people have anti-results-luck intuitions and lay theories, and that where they appear to have pro-results-luck intuitions, these can be explained as people tracking something only contingently associated with outcome rather than outcome itself. It is worth noting, however, as several of these authors do themselves, that even if we were confident in our possession of psychological explanations of our intuitions, there would still be philosophical work to do to sort out what the normative facts are. But it is helpful to have a growing body of systematic studies of intuitive reactions to scenarios involving moral luck, as well as investigation into the features of cases people find salient.

There is a final argument in favor of the acceptance of moral luck of a very different kind that might ultimately help decide the issue in one direction or the other. It explicitly encompasses every kind of luck and thus poses a deep and difficult challenge to moral luck skeptics, particularly the large group who focus exclusively on resultant luck. The main idea is that rejecting resultant luck, but not other sorts of luck, is an unstable position (e.g., Moore 1997 and Hartman 2017). In a nutshell, one cannot find a principled place to draw the line at refusing to accept moral luck. In effect, this argument is Nagel’s argument in reverse. Begin by observing that we lack control over everything: the results of our actions, our circumstances, our constitution, and our causal history. If we are to avoid moral skepticism, then we must accept moral luck in some areas, and if we do that, then we ought to accept it in the area of results. Particularly if we accept that we are not predisposed to accept the Control Principle in the first place, then we ought to accept luck in all areas, thereby avoiding moral skepticism.

Hartman (2017) offers a version of this strategy that is explicitly analogical (pp. 105–07). Consider three agents who all form the intention and plan to carry out a murder. Each has a single opportunity to pull the trigger of a gun. Sneezy sneezes and so is unable to pull the trigger; Off-Target pulls the trigger, but the bullet is intercepted by a bird, and Bulls-Eye pulls the trigger and hits her target. By hypothesis, there is circumstantial luck, so, claims Hartman, Sneezy is less blameworthy than Off-Target, even though she would have pulled the trigger had her allergies not acted up. But given the parallels between Sneezy and Off-Target (same intentions, plans, and so on) are similar to the parallels between Off-Target and Bulls-Eye, we have analogical evidence that Off-Target is less blameworthy than Bulls-Eye.

There are a variety of possible replies, such as that offered by Rivera-López (2016), which claims that there is a principled difference resting on the need to make moral attributions at all. We should accept moral luck where it is necessary for making the practice of attributing responsibility possible, but given that it is necessary in the case of circumstantial luck and not in the case of results luck, we can draw a principled line between the two pairs of cases. Hartman takes it that what is really needed here is that we ought to accept moral luck only if it is needed for our practices of attribution, but also suggest that it that this begs the question in the context at least without further defense. Another reply is that accepting circumstantial luck does not require accepting that it makes a difference everywhere, and that indeed Sneezy and Off-Target are themselves equally blameworthy. Thus, the analogical argument does not get off the ground with this set of cases. And yet if we turn to a different set of cases, such as the case of Jenny described earlier, who lives in a utopian world but would have collaborated with the Nazis, where the intuition of differential degrees of blameworthiness is stronger, the analogy becomes much weaker. Nevertheless, the general line of argument poses a challenge for anyone who wishes to draw a line, accepting some kinds of moral luck and not others.

Now even if no one has adequately defended a way of drawing a line between different sorts of luck, it is not obvious that the door has been closed on all future attempts. Thus, one way of seeing this argument is as a shift-the-burden one. Those who wish to draw a line between different sorts of moral luck must offer a deeper rationale for doing so than has yet been offered.

According to this approach, it is simply incoherent to accept or deny the existence of some type(s) of moral luck. This approach has been used for constitutive luck in particular.

Among those who wish to preserve the centrality of morality in our lives, many have appealed to an idea formulated by Nicholas Rescher (1993), according to which “[o]ne cannot meaningfully said to be lucky in regard to who one is, but only with respect to what happens to one. Identity must precede luck” (155). It is easy to take Rescher’s point out of context without realizing that he is working with a notion of luck that differs from the notion of “lack of control.” According to Rescher, something is lucky if (i) it came about “by accident” where this seems to mean something like “unplanned” or “unexpected” or “out of the ordinary” and (ii) the outcome “has a significantly evaluative status in representing a good or bad result, a benefit or loss”(145). Taken this way, it does seem at least very odd to say that one’s identity is (or is not) a matter of luck. But it is less clear that there is anything odd—let alone incoherent—about saying that one’s identity is not a matter within one’s control.

Could there nevertheless be some truth to Rescher’s claim even if we understand “luck” as “out of one’s control?” Perhaps it does not make sense, for example, to say that a person is in control of who she is. For one could argue that this would amount to saying that a person is a self-creator. And in fact the Control Principle, taken to its logical extreme, seems to lead to just such a requirement (see, e.g., Browne 1992, Nagel 1986, 118). If it turns out that self-creation is conceptually impossible as many argue (e.g., Galen Strawson 1986), then perhaps there is a sense in which it is right to say that being in control of one’s constitution makes no sense. But it does not follow from this that it is meaningless to deny that one can control one’s constitution.

Perhaps the best way of deploying the insight that there is something special about luck and constitution is not to say that it is meaningless to discuss it, but to say that constitutive moral luck is simply unproblematic for morality in the way that resultant moral luck is. This would be to take up the “line-drawing” challenge as described in the last section. On this line of reasoning, for purposes of moral assessment, it does not matter how you came to be; what matters is what you do with what you are. Of course, as we saw, this requires defense and explanation, but it is a way of capturing the insight that constitutive luck is relevantly different from the resultant luck that has captivated a number of commentators.

The problem of moral luck is deeply unsettling. Naturally, there is a wide variety of responses to it. On the one extreme are those who deny that there is any sort of moral luck, and on the other are those who accept every sort of moral luck. Most writers who have responded to the problem fall somewhere in between; either they explicitly take a mixed approach or they confine their arguments to a carefully delineated subset of types of moral luck while remaining uncommitted with respect to the others. The extreme positions are vulnerable to the objection that they have left some consideration or other completely unaccounted for. But those who occupy the middle also face a formidable challenge: where can one draw a principled line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of luck? As we have seen, one apparently natural place to draw a line is between resultant luck and all of the other sorts. On this view, there is no resultant moral luck, despite initial appearances, although there is moral luck of all the other kinds. Thus, occupiers of this position face the challenge of setting out a plausible rationale for drawing the line where they do. But they also face the challenge of where precisely to draw another line, namely, the line around what counts as “results.” For we can ask on which side of this line do intentions, willings, bodily movements, and so on, fall. Do results include everything that happens after the formation of an intention or the exertion of the will, for example? Or everything that follows the beginning of the formation of an intention or the beginning of the exertion of the will? Or everything that follows the “affection of the heart” of which Adam Smith wrote so eloquently? These are difficult questions for those who would draw a line at resultant luck. But difficult questions await every other proposal, too. Fortunately, there is a rich and growing literature providing a full spectrum of responses to explore.

• Adams, Robert. M., 1973, “Middle Knowledge”, The Journal of Philosophy , 70: 552–554.
• –––, 1985, “Involuntary Sins”, The Philosophical Review , 94: 3–31.
• Adler, Jonthan E., 1987, “Luckless Desert is Different Desert”, Mind , 96: 247–249.
• Alexander, Lawrence, Kim Ferzan, and Steven Morse, 2009, Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Anderson. Elizabeth, 1999, “What is the Point of Equality”, Ethics , 109: 339–349.
• Andre, Judith, 1983, “Nagel, Williams, and Moral Luck”, Analysis , 43: 202–207; reprinted in Statman 1993b.
• Arneson, Richard, 2001, “Luck and Equality”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume , 75: 73–90.
• –––, forthcoming, “Rawls, Responsibility, and Distributive Justice”, in Justice, Political Liberalism, and Utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls , M. Salles and J.A. Weymark (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Aristotle, 1984, The Complete Works: Revised Oxford Translation , J. Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Björnsson, G. and Persson, K., 2012, “The Explanatory Component of Moral Responsibility,” Noûs , 46: 326–54.
• Browne, Brynmor, 1992, “A Solution to the Problem of Moral Luck”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 42: 343–356.
• Chisolm, Roderick, 1964, “Human Freedom and the Self”, The Lindley Lecture , University of Kansas; reprinted in Watson 1982.
• Clarke, Randolph, 1993, “Toward a Credible Agent-Causal Account of Free Will”, Noûs , 27: 191–203.
• –––, 2005, “Agent Causation and the Problem of Luck,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 86: 408–421.
• Coffman, E.J., 2015, Luck: Its Nature and Significance for Human Knowledge and Agency , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cohen, G.A. 1989, “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice”, Ethics , 99: 906–44.
• Cushman, Fiery and Green, Joshua, 2012,“Finding Faults: How Cognitive Dilemmas Illuminate Cognitive Structure,” Social Neuroscience , 7: 269–79.
• Davis, Michael, 1986, “Why Attempts Deserve Less Punishment Than Completed Crimes”, Law and Philosophy , 5: 1–32.
• Domsky, Darren, 2004, “There is No Door: Finally Solving the Problem of Moral Luck,” The Journal of Philosophy , 101: 445–464.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 10: 283–345.
• –––, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Enoch, David, 2010, “Moral Luck and the Law”, Philosophy Compass , 5(1): 42–54.
• Enoch, David and Guttel, Ehud, 2010, “Cognitive Biases and Moral Luck,” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 7: 372–86
• Enoch, David and Andrei Marmor, 2007, “The Case Against Moral Luck,” Law and Philosophy , 26: 405–436.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1970, Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1995, “Equal Punishment for Failed Attempts: Some Bad But Instructive Arguments Against It”, The Arizona Law Review , 37: 117–133.
• Fischer, John Martin, and Ravizza, Mark, 1998, Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Greco, John, 1995, “A Second Paradox Concerning Responsibility and Luck”, Metaphilosophy , 26: 81–96.
• Hanna, Nathan, 2014, “Moral Luck Defended”, Noûs , 48: 683– 698.
• Hartman, Robert, 2017, In Defense of Moral Luck: Why Luck Often Affects Praiseworthiness and Blameworthiness , Abingdon: Routledge.
• Herman, Barbara, 1995, “Feinberg on Luck and Failed Attempts”, The Arizona Law Review , 37: 143–150.
• Hurley, Susan, 2003, Justice, Luck, and Knowledge , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2001, “Luck and Equality”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume), 75: 51–72.
• Irwin, Terence, 1988, Aristotle’s First Principles , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Jensen, Henning, 1984, “Morality and Luck”, Philosophy , 59: 323–330; reprinted in Statman 1993b.
• Kadish, Sanford, 1994, “Forward: The Criminal Law and the Luck of the Draw,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 84: 2183–2237.
• Kane, Robert, 1996, The Significance of Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1999, “Responsibility, Luck, and Chance: Reflections on Free Will and Indeterminism”, The Journal of Philosophy , 96: 217–240.
• Kant, Immanuel, 1784 [1998], Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals , M. Gregor (ed. and transl.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Khoury, Andrew, 2018, “The Objects of Moral Responsibility”, Philosophical Studies , 175: 1357–1381.
• Kneer, Markus and Machery, Edouard, 2018, “No Luck for Moral Luck,” Cognition , 182: 331–348.
• Latus, Andrew, 2000, “Moral and Epistemic Luck”, Journal of Philosophical Research , 25: 149–172.
• –––, 2001, “Moral Luck,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Feiser (ed.), available online .
• Levi, Don S., 1989, “What’s Luck Got to Do With It?”, Philosophical Investigations , 12: 1–13; reprinted in Statman 1993b.
• Levy, Neil, 2011, Hard Luck: How Luck Undermines Free Will and Moral Responsibility , Oxford: Clarendon Press, especially chapter 5.
• Lewis, David, 1989, “The Punishment That Leaves Something to Chance”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 96: 227–242.
• Mele, Al, 1999, “Ultimate Responsibility and Dumb Luck”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 16: 274–293.
• –––, 2006, Free Will and Luck , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Moore, Michael, 1997, Placing Blame: A Theory of the Criminal Law , Oxford: Clarendon Press, especially chapter 5.
• –––, 2009, Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nagel, Thomas, 1979, Mortal Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press; page reference is to the reprint of chapter 3 in Statman 1993b.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nelkin, Dana Kay, 2004, “Irrelevant Alternatives and Frankfurt Counterfactuals,” Philosophical Studies , 121: 1–25.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 1986, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; page reference is to the reprint of pages 1–8, 322–340 in Statman 1993b.
• O’Connor, Timothy, 2000, Persons and Causes: the Metaphysics of Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Otsuka, Michael, 2009, “Moral Luck: Optional, Not Brute,” Philosophical Perspectives , 23: 373–388.
• Pereboom, Derk, 2001, Living Without Free Will , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Plato, 1997, Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Pritchard, Duncan 2006, “Moral and Epistemic Luck”, Metaphilosophy , 37: 1–25.
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Rescher, Nicholas, 1993, “Moral Luck”, in Moral Luck , Daniel Statman (ed.), Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Richards, Norvin, 1986, “Luck and Desert”, Mind , 65: 198–209; page reference is to the reprint in Statman 1993b.
• Ripstein, Arthur, 1999, Equality, Responsibility, and the Law , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rivera-López, Eduardo “How to Reject Resultant Luck Alone”, Journal of Value Inquiry , 50: 415–423.
• Roemer, John E. 1996, Theories of Distributive Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rosebury, Brian, 1995, “Moral Responsibility and Moral Luck”, Philosophical Review , 104: 499–524.
• Royzman, Edward and Kumar, Rahul, 2004, “Is Consequential Luck Morally Inconsequential?” Ratio , 17: 329–44.
• Scheffler, Samuel, 2003, “What is Egalitarianism”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 31: 5–39.
• Smith, Adam, 1790/1976, The Theory of Moral Sentiments , D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Statman, Daniel, 1991, “Moral and Epistemic Luck”, Ratio , 4: 146–156.
• –––, Introduction to Moral Luck , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• –––, (ed.), 1993b, Moral Luck , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Statman, Daniel, 2005, “Doors, Keys, and Moral Luck: A Reply to Domsky,” The Journal of Philosophy , 102: 422–436
• Strawson, Galen, 1986, Freedom and Belief , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sverdlik, Steven, 1988, “Crime and Moral Luck”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 25: 79–86; reprinted in Statman 1993b.
• Taylor, Richard, 1966, Action and Purpose , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1993, “Morality and Bad Luck”, in Moral Luck , D. Statman (ed.), Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1995, “Moments of Carelessness and Massive Loss”, in Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law , David Owen(ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Walker, Margaret Urban, 1991, “Moral Luck and the Virtues of Impure Agency”, Metaphilosophy , 22: 14–27; page reference is to the reprint in Statman 1993b.
• Watson, Gary, 1982, Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Williams, Bernard, 1976, “Moral Luck”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , supplementary volume L: 115–35. Reprinted in Statman 1993b, pp. 35–55.
• –––, 1981, Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973–1980 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1993, “Postscript”, in Moral Luck , D. Statman (ed.), Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Wolf, Susan, 1990, Freedom Within Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2001, “The Moral of Moral Luck”, Philosophic Exchange , 31: 4–19.
• Yaffe, Gideon, 2010, Attempts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Zimmerman, Michael, 1987, “Luck and Moral Responsibility”, Ethics , 97: 374–386; reprinted in Statman 1993b.
• –––, 2002, “Taking Luck Seriously”, The Journal of Philosophy , 99: 553–576.
• –––, 2006, “Moral Luck: A Partial Map,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 36: 585–608.
• –––, 2002, “Moral Luck Reexamined”, Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility , 3: 136–158.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | causation: in the law | character, moral | compatibilism | determinism: causal | egalitarianism | free will | incompatibilism: (nondeterministic) theories of free will | moral responsibility | punishment, legal

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to David Brink, Nina Davis, Derk Pereboom, and Sam Rickless for their very helpful input and constructive suggestions. I also benefited greatly from participation in the University of San Diego Institute for Law and Philosophy Roundtable on Moral Luck in April 2003.

Copyright © 2019 by Dana K. Nelkin < dnelkin @ ucsd . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Why Luck Matters More Than You Might Think

When people see themselves as self-made, they tend to be less generous and public-spirited.

I’ m a lucky man. Perhaps the most extreme example of my considerable good fortune occurred one chilly Ithaca morning in November 2007, while I was playing tennis with my longtime friend and collaborator, the Cornell psychologist Tom Gilovich. He later told me that early in the second set, I complained of feeling nauseated. The next thing he knew, I was lying motionless on the court.

He yelled for someone to call 911, and then started pounding on my chest—something he’d seen many times in movies but had never been trained to do. He got a cough out of me, but seconds later I was again motionless with no pulse. Very shortly, an ambulance showed up.

Ithaca’s ambulances are dispatched from the other side of town, more than five miles away. How did this one arrive so quickly? By happenstance, just before I collapsed, ambulances had been dispatched to two separate auto accidents close to the tennis center. Since one of them involved no serious injuries, an ambulance was able to peel off and travel just a few hundred yards to me. EMTs put electric paddles on my chest and rushed me to our local hospital. There, I was loaded onto a helicopter and flown to a larger hospital in Pennsylvania, where I was placed on ice overnight.

Doctors later told me that I’d suffered an episode of sudden cardiac arrest. Almost 90 percent of people who experience such episodes don’t survive, and the few who do are typically left with significant impairments. And for three days after the event, my family tells me, I spoke gibberish. But on day four, I was discharged from the hospital with a clear head. Two weeks later, I was playing tennis with Tom again.

If that ambulance hadn’t happened to have been nearby, I would be dead.

Not all random events lead to favorable outcomes, of course. Mike Edwards is no longer alive because chance frowned on him. Edwards, formerly a cellist in the British pop band the Electric Light Orchestra, was driving on a rural road in England in 2010 when a 1,300-pound bale of hay rolled down a steep hillside and landed on his van, crushing him. By all accounts, he was a decent, peaceful man. That a bale of hay snuffed out his life was bad luck, pure and simple.

Most people will concede that I’m fortunate to have survived and that Edwards was unfortunate to have perished. But in other arenas, randomness can play out in subtler ways, causing us to resist explanations that involve luck. In particular, many of us seem uncomfortable with the possibility that personal success might depend to any significant extent on chance. As E. B. White once wrote, “Luck is not something you can mention in the presence of self-made men.”

My having cheated death does not make me an authority on luck. But it has motivated me to learn much more about the subject than I otherwise would have. In the process, I have discovered that chance plays a far larger role in life outcomes than most people realize. And yet, the luckiest among us appear especially unlikely to appreciate our good fortune. According to the Pew Research Center, people in higher income brackets are much more likely than those with lower incomes to say that individuals get rich primarily because they work hard. Other surveys bear this out: Wealthy people overwhelmingly attribute their own success to hard work rather than to factors like luck or being in the right place at the right time.

That’s troubling, because a growing body of evidence suggests that seeing ourselves as self-made—rather than as talented, hardworking, and lucky—leads us to be less generous and public-spirited. It may even make the lucky less likely to support the conditions (such as high-quality public infrastructure and education) that made their own success possible.

Happily, though, when people are prompted to reflect on their good fortune, they become much more willing to contribute to the common good.

Psychologists use the term hindsight bias to describe our tendency to think, after the fact, that an event was predictable even when it wasn’t. This bias operates with particular force for unusually successful outcomes.

In his commencement address to Princeton University’s 2012 graduating class, Michael Lewis described the series of chance events that helped make him—already privileged by virtue of his birth into a well-heeled family and his education at Princeton—a celebrated author:

One night I was invited to a dinner where I sat next to the wife of a big shot of a big Wall Street investment bank, Salomon Brothers. She more or less forced her husband to give me a job. I knew next to nothing about Salomon Brothers. But Salomon Brothers happened to be where Wall Street was being reinvented—into the Wall Street we’ve come to know and love today. When I got there I was assigned, almost arbitrarily, to the very best job in the place to observe the growing madness: They turned me into the house derivatives expert.

On the basis of his experiences at Salomon, Lewis wrote his 1989 best seller, Liar’s Poker , which described how Wall Street financial maneuvering was transforming the world.

All of a sudden people were telling me I was a born writer. This was absurd. Even I could see that there was another, more true narrative, with luck as its theme. What were the odds of being seated at that dinner next to that Salomon Brothers lady? Of landing inside the best Wall Street firm to write the story of the age? Of landing in the seat with the best view of the business? … This isn’t just false humility. It’s false humility with a point. My case illustrates how success is always rationalized. People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck—especially successful people. As they age, and succeed, people feel their success was somehow inevitable.

Our understanding of human cognition provides one important clue as to why we may see success as inevitable: the availability heuristic. Using this cognitive shortcut, we tend to estimate the likelihood of an event or outcome based on how readily we can recall similar instances. Successful careers, of course, result from many factors, including hard work, talent, and chance. Some of those factors recur often, making them easy to recall. But others happen sporadically and therefore get short shrift when we construct our life stories.

Little wonder that when talented, hardworking people in developed countries strike it rich, they tend to ascribe their success to talent and hard work above all else. Most of them are vividly aware of how hard they’ve worked and how talented they are. They’ve been working hard and solving difficult problems every day for many years! In some abstract sense, they probably do know that they might not have performed as well in some other environment. Yet their day-to-day experience provides few reminders of how fortunate they were not to have been born in, say, war-torn Zimbabwe.

Our personal narratives are biased in a second way: Events that work to our disadvantage are easier to recall than those that affect us positively. My friend Tom Gilovich invokes a metaphor involving headwinds and tailwinds to describe this asymmetry.

When you’re running or bicycling into the wind, you’re very aware of it. You just can’t wait till the course turns around and you’ve got the wind at your back. When that happens, you feel great . But then you forget about it very quickly—you’re just not aware of the wind at your back. And that’s just a fundamental feature of how our minds, and how the world, works. We’re just going to be more aware of those barriers than of the things that boost us along.

That we tend to overestimate our own responsibility for our successes is not to say that we shouldn’t take pride in them. Pride is a powerful motivator; moreover, a tendency to overlook luck’s importance may be perversely adaptive, as it encourages us to persevere in the face of obstacles.

And yet failing to consider the role of chance has a dark side, too, making fortunate people less likely to pass on their good fortune.

The one dimension of personal luck that transcends all others is to have been born in a highly developed country. I often think of Birkhaman Rai, the Bhutanese man who was my cook when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Nepal. He was perhaps the most resourceful person I’ve ever met. Though he was never taught to read, he could perform virtually any task in his environment to a high standard, from thatching a roof to repairing a clock to driving a tough bargain without alienating people. Even so, the meager salary I was able to pay him was almost certainly the high point of his life’s earnings trajectory. If he’d grown up in a rich country, he would have been far more prosperous, perhaps even spectacularly successful.

Being born in a favorable environment is an enormous stroke of luck. But maintaining such an environment requires high levels of public investment in everything from infrastructure to education—something Americans have lately been unwilling to support. Many factors have contributed to this reticence, but one in particular stands out: budget deficits resulting from a long-term decline in the United States’ top marginal tax rate.

A recent study by the political scientists Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright found that the top 1 percent of U.S. wealth-holders are “extremely active politically” and are much more likely than the rest of the American public to resist taxation, regulation, and government spending. Given that the wealthiest Americans believe their prosperity is due, above all else, to their own talent and hard work, is this any wonder? Surely it’s a short hop from overlooking luck’s role in success to feeling entitled to keep the lion’s share of your income—and to being reluctant to sustain the public investments that let you succeed in the first place.

And yet this state of affairs does not appear to be inevitable: Recent research suggests that being prompted to recognize luck can encourage generosity. For example, Yuezhou Huo, a former research assistant of mine, designed an experiment in which she promised subjects a cash prize in exchange for completing a survey about a positive thing that had recently happened to them. She asked one group of participants to list factors beyond their control that contributed to the event, a second group to list personal qualities and actions that contributed to it, and a control group to simply explain why the good thing had happened. After completing the survey, subjects were given an opportunity to donate some or all of their reward to charity. Those who had been prompted to credit external causes—many mentioned luck, as well as factors such as supportive spouses, thoughtful teachers, and financial aid—donated 25 percent more than those who’d been asked to credit personal qualities or choices. Donations from the control group fell roughly midway between those from the other two groups.

Experiments by David DeSteno, a psychologist at Northeastern University, offer additional evidence that gratitude might lead to greater willingness to support the common good. In one widely cited study, he and his co-authors devised a clever manipulation to make a group of laboratory subjects feel grateful, and then gave them an opportunity to take actions that would benefit others at their own expense. Subjects in whom gratitude had been stoked were subsequently about 25 percent more generous toward strangers than were members of a control group. These findings are consistent with those of other academic psychologists. Taken together, the research suggests that when we are reminded of luck’s importance, we are much more likely to plow some of our own good fortune back into the common good.

In an unexpected twist, we may even find that recognizing our luck increases our good fortune. Social scientists have been studying gratitude intensively for almost two decades, and have found that it produces a remarkable array of physical, psychological, and social changes. Robert Emmons of the University of California at Davis and Michael McCullough of the University of Miami have been among the most prolific contributors to this effort. In one of their collaborations, they asked a first group of people to keep diaries in which they noted things that had made them feel grateful, a second group to note things that had made them feel irritated, and a third group to simply record events. After 10 weeks, the researchers reported dramatic changes in those who had noted their feelings of gratitude. The newly grateful had less frequent and less severe aches and pains and improved sleep quality. They reported greater happiness and alertness. They described themselves as more outgoing and compassionate, and less likely to feel lonely and isolated. No similar changes were observed in the second or third groups. Other psychologists have documented additional benefits of gratitude, such as reduced anxiety and diminished aggressive impulses.

Economists like to talk about scarcity, but its logic doesn’t always hold up in the realm of human emotion. Gratitude, in particular, is a currency we can spend freely without fear of bankruptcy. Indeed, if you talk with others about their experiences with luck, as I have, you may discover that with only a little prompting, even people who have never given much thought to the subject are surprisingly willing to rethink their life stories, recalling lucky breaks they’ve enjoyed along the way. And because these conversations almost always leave participants feeling happier, it’s not hard to imagine them becoming contagious

This essay is adapted from Robert H. Frank’s new book, Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy .

The Good Luck of Your Bad Luck: Marcus Aurelius on the Stoic Strategy for Weathering Life’s Waves and Turning Suffering into Strength

By maria popova.

Most people live with a great deal more suffering than is visible to even the most proximate and sensitive onlooker. Many have survived things both unimaginable and invisible to the outside world. This has been the case since the dawn of our species, for human nature has hardly changed beneath the continually repainted façade of our social sanctions — human beings have always been capable of inflicting tremendous pain on each other and capable of triumphal healing.

There is, however, a peculiar modern phenomenon that might best be described as a culture of competitive trauma. In recent times, the touching human longing for sympathy, that impulse to have our suffering recognized and validated, has grown distorted by a troubling compulsion for broadcast-suffering and comparative validity. Personhoods are staked on the cards dealt and not the hands played, as if we evolved the opposable thumbs of our agency for nothing. In memoirs and reality shows, across infinite Alexandrian scrolls of social media feeds, the unlucky events of life have become the currency of attention and identification.

There is a way, with moderate moral imagination and considerable countercultural courage, to subvert this tendency without turning away from the reality and magnitude of suffering that we do live with — a way to esteem in attention and admiration not the unluckiness of what has happened to us but the luckiness that, despite it, we have become the people we are and have the lives we have by the sheer unwillingness to stay in that small dark place, which is at heart a willingness to be larger than our hurt selves.

It is not a new way of reframing personal narrative (which, after all, is the neuropsychological pillar of identity ). It is a very old way, common to many of the world’s ancient traditions but most clearly and creatively articulated by the Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius (April 26, 121–March 17, 180).

Because the modern mind calculates validity of vantage point by estimating the comparative value of suffering, it must be observed that, later in life, Marcus Aurelius had it easier than most of his contemporaries, being Emperor; it must also be observed that, earlier in life, he had it harder than most, being a fatherless child and a queer teenager in Roman antiquity, epochs before the notion of LGBTQ rights, or for that matter most human rights. It is hardly surprising that he turned to Stoicism for succor and training in living with the uncertainty of events and the certainty of loss.

His timeless Meditations ( public library ), newly translated and annotated by the British classics scholar Robin Waterfield, were the original self-help — Marcus wrote these notebooks primarily as notes to himself while learning how to live: how to live with more agency, equanimity, and even joy in a world violently unpredictable at all times and especially so in his time.

In one of those self-counsels, Marcus Aurelius considers the key to regarding one’s own life, and living it, with positive realism:

Be like a headland: the waves beat against it continuously, but it stands fast and around it the boiling water dies down. “It’s my rotten luck that this has happened to me.” On the contrary, “It’s my good luck that, although this has happened to me, I still feel no distress, since I’m unbruised by the present and unconcerned about the future.” What happened could have happened to anyone, but not everyone could have carried on without letting it distress him. So why regard the incident as a piece of bad luck rather than seeing your avoidance of distress as a piece of good luck? Do you generally describe a person as unlucky when his nature worked well? Or do you count it as a malfunction of a person’s nature when it succeeds in securing the outcome it wanted?

With an eye to “what human nature wants” — what life ultimately demands as it lives itself through us, and what our highest answer is — he concludes:

Can what happened to you stop you from being fair, high-minded, moderate, conscientious, unhasty, honest, moral, self-reliant, and so on — from possessing all the qualities that, when present, enable a man’s * nature to be fulfilled? So then, whenever something happens that might cause you distress, remember to rely on this principle: this is not bad luck, but bearing it valiantly is good luck.

Complement with an equally counterintuitive and perspective-broadening modern case for the luckiness of death and Alan Watts on the ambiguity of good and bad luck , then revisit other highlights from the indispensable Meditations : Marcus Aurelius on how to handle disappointing people , the key to living with presence , the most potent motivation for work , and how to begin each day for maximum serenity of mind .

— Published September 19, 2021 — https://www.themarginalian.org/2021/09/19/marcus-aurelius-luck/ —

www.themarginalian.org

PRINT ARTICLE

Email article, filed under, books culture marcus aurelius philosophy psychology stoicism, view full site.

The Marginalian participates in the Bookshop.org and Amazon.com affiliate programs, designed to provide a means for sites to earn commissions by linking to books. In more human terms, this means that whenever you buy a book from a link here, I receive a small percentage of its price, which goes straight back into my own colossal biblioexpenses. Privacy policy . (TLDR: You're safe — there are no nefarious "third parties" lurking on my watch or shedding crumbs of the "cookies" the rest of the internet uses.)

Essay on “Luck” for School, College Students, Long and Short English Essay, Speech for Class 8, 9, 10, 12 and Competitive Exams.

We commonly speak of good luck and bad luck, and talk of people being lucky or unlucky, and of things happening by pure chance. Yet science tells us there is no such thing as chance or luck. According to the law of cause and effect, every happening has a cause. Not a leaf falls, not a wind blows, not a flower opens, without a reason. But we still use the word chance to describe happenings, the reason of which we do not know. When such apparently causeless happenings are favourable to us, we say they are lucky; when unfavourable, we call them unlucky. “Luck is simply untraced, and so far untraceable, law.”

All purely gambling games are games of chance. They are not decided by skill or forethought, but simply by the happening of something we cannot control, like the fall of a coin or the turning up of a certain card. No doubt there is a reason why, when we spin a coin, it is sometimes “heads” and sometimes “tails”. But, if we are playing fairly, we cannot discover the reason, and so we cannot control the coin. So we say that it’s turning up heads or tails is simply a matter of luck or chance.

Now ignorance is the mother of superstition. When people do not know why a thing happens in a certain way, they attribute its happening to good or bad luck. People to whom pleasant things often happen are called “lucky”; and those who seem to be always meeting with misfortune are called “unlucky”; as if there were something in themselves that attracts good or bad fortune. They even think that inanimate things can bring them good or bad luck. So they wear charms to keep away misfortune and are really nervous if the salt is upset in their direction, or if they pass under a ladder, or see the new moon through glass.

Now of course all such superstitions are pure nonsense. There is really no such thing as luck or chance, and only foolish people waste their time in waiting for a miracle of good luck to bring them a fortune. The wise man will try to attain it by hard work, wise effort, and enterprise, and Will leave nothing to chance. Most of the people who are called “lucky” have good fortune because they work for it, and the so-called “unlucky” men miss it because they are lazy or dull.

Modern science has taught us that nothing happens by chance. Everything is the effect of some cause, even though we may not be able to discover what that cause is. Not a leaf falls to the ground, not a wind blows, and not a flower opens, without a reason. There is really, then, no such thing as chance. But we still use the word to describe happenings the reason of which we do not know, and when such apparently causeless happenings are favourable to our interests we say they are lucky; when unfavourable, we say they are unlucky.

All gambling games are games of chances because they are decided not by skill or forethought, but simply by the happening of something which we cannot control, like the fall of a coin or the turning up of a certain card. No doubt there is the reason why, when we spin a coin, it is sometimes “heads” and sometimes “tails.” But if we play fairly, we cannot discover that reason, and so we cannot control the fall of the coin So we say that it’s turning up heads or tails is simply a matter of luck or chance.

Now ignorance always produces superstition. When people do not know why a thing happens in a certain way, they attribute its happening to good or bad luck. People, to whom pleasant things often happen, is called “lucky” men; and those who are always meeting with misfortune are called “unlucky,” as if there were something in the people themselves that attracted good or bad fortune. When folk have once got this idea of good and bad luck into their heads, they believe in all kinds of silly superstitions, and really think that inanimate things can bring them good fortune or bad fortune. Such people are really nervous if the salt is upset on the table in their direction; if they sleep in a room numbered 13 at a hotel; if they pass under a ladder; or see the new moon through glass. These things, for no reason at all, are supposed to bring bad luck.

Now of course all such superstitions are pure nonsense, and no educated person should bother about them for a moment. There is really no such thing as luck or chance, and only foolish people waste their lives in waiting for a miracle of good luck to bring them a fortune. The wise man will try to attain it by hard work, wise effort and enterprise, and leave nothing to chance. Most of the people who are called “lucky” have good fortune because they work for it, and so-called “unlucky men” miss it because they are lazy or stupid.

Related Posts

Absolute-Study

Hindi Essay, English Essay, Punjabi Essay, Biography, General Knowledge, Ielts Essay, Social Issues Essay, Letter Writing in Hindi, English and Punjabi, Moral Stories in Hindi, English and Punjabi.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Personality

What Is Luck?

Do life events happen to you or do you make them happen.

Posted July 16, 2021 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods

• People who believe in luck tend to see life events as something they don't directly control.
• Believing in luck can be a way to defend against the chaos of life.

2021 is shaping up to be another transformational year as we slowly emerge from the pandemic and try to get our lives back something resembling normal. Stories about people who were infected by the virus and survived are appearing in newspapers, magazines, and online. A recent article in Vox documents how some survivors of the pandemic have described feeling out of control and helpless in the face of the disease.[1]

And, sadly, many have also described feeling guilty for having survived when others didn’t. Survivors, as well as people who never got sick at all, often attribute their survival to luck. This made me wonder: Do people typically feel lucky they survived COVID-19 or unlucky to have been exposed to it? Deciding if one is lucky to have escaped or unlucky to have been affected in the first place can be a difficult thing to do. So what exactly is luck?

Defining luck

People who believe in luck describe themselves as either lucky or unlucky as if luck were a stable and enduring personality characteristic. However, researchers who study luck usually see it very differently.

Luck in psychology is usually thought of as an attribution. An attribution is a decision we make about the cause of an event or the reason for something happening in the world. Because we’re social animals, the “event” we’re focused on is very often other people. We are deeply invested in figuring out why people do what they do.

When we go looking for factors that cause an event, we tend to attribute causality to our own skill, our effort, the difficulty of the task or to luck. Skill and effort are internal, relatively stable, personal factors that can be controlled by the person doing the attributing. The difficulty of the task and luck are external to us, unstable and less controllable.

Attributions of luck

Imagine you’re a student, taking a course in something brand new to you—let’s say a course in statistics. You get the results of the first exam back and you see a large red "F" on the page. How do you explain the cause of this event? Researchers say that your attribution will focus on three basic features of the situation: the locus and stability of the cause, and the degree of control we have over that cause. The locus of a cause refers to whether we see the source of the cause as an aspect of our own personality and behavior (an internal locus) or as coming from the situation we are in (an external locus.) So, if you say to yourself, “I flunked the test because I blew it off and went out partying instead of studying,” that’s an internal attribution—an explanation based on an assessment of your own behavior.

If you then say, “I’ve always been a good student, I just have to apply myself next time,” then you see your internal attribution as a stable one. And, if you go on to say, “I can join the study group that was just organized on my dorm floor or go see the tutor for the class before the next exam,” then you’re saying that the cause of your poor grade on the first exam is internal, stable and that you have some control over it. This student is not likely to attribute his or her grade to luck.

Now imagine that your response to the poor grade on the exam is to say “Wow, the teacher really hates me! She graded my exam way too harshly. She was probably ticked off about something when she graded my exam—maybe next time she’ll be in a better mood.” Then your attribution is external (based on the situation, not on your own abilities), unstable and outside of your control. This student is much more likely to say that he or she flunked because of bad luck.

The attribution explanation of luck works in some situations, but it doesn’t work in all of them, and, worst of all, it doesn’t really match up with the way that most people talk about luck in daily life.

Two researchers in the Netherlands asked gamblers, a group of people who should be familiar with luck and being lucky, what they thought about luck.[2] To their surprise, not one gambler mentioned cause and effect relationships, or luck being something that was external or out of their control. On the contrary, the gamblers said that some people were just luckier than others (implying that luck is an internal characteristic of some people) and that luck was also something that existed out there in the universe somewhere, external and separate from humanity. The trick was to recognize when luck was available, and when it could be used, when you might get it to linger beside you by rubbing your lucky rabbits’ foot or using your lucky dice, and when luck was running out.

Luck has a multitude of definitions, varying not just across individuals but also across situations. Sometimes we see ourselves at the mercy of chance. Other times, we see luck almost as our birthright. We often believe in luck and in our own personal luckiness as a defense against the whims of fortune. Ascribing survival during the pandemic to luck is an example of this defense against randomness in the universe.

1] Courage, Katherine Harmon (March 17, 2021). “You can’t get away from the idea that you’re just lucky to be alive.” VOX, https://www.vox.com/22316006/covid-19-survivor-guilt-symptoms-mental-he… , Accessed July 10, 2021.

2] Wagenaar, W.A and Keren, G.B (1988). Chance and luck are not the same. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 65-75.

Barbara Blatchley, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Agnes Scott College in Georgia. She researches sensory system development and perceptual processing.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Explainer: does luck exist?

Head of Neuroethics, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health

Disclosure statement

Neil Levy receives funding from the Australian Research Foundation and the Templeton Foundation.

View all partners

Some people seem born lucky. Everything they touch turns to gold. Others are dogged by misfortune.

It’s not just people who might be lucky or unlucky – it can be single acts. When the ball hits a post in soccer, the commentators often say the striker was unlucky. We sometimes argue whether an act was lucky or not. I might say your pool shot was lucky. “Not luck; skill”, you might reply.

Is any of this talk sensible? Is there really such a thing as luck? Do some people have more of it than others (just as some people are better at pool than others)? I think there is a perfectly reasonable way of making sense of talk about luck. But there is no such thing as luck. It isn’t a property, like mass, or an object. Rather, to talk about luck is to talk about how things might easily have gone.

This view entails that no-one has luck. We can’t truly say of someone they’re lucky, meaning they are the kind of person to whom lucky things can be expected to happen.

It has sometimes been suggested that luck exists only if a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics is true: if causality is not “deterministic”. If physical determinism is true then every event that occurs is entirely predictable (in principle), by someone who knows enough about the universe and its laws.

If indeterministic physics is true, then such predictability is not possible: no one, no matter how much they know, can predict every event that happens, even in principle.

I don’t know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, but it seems unlikely to me that we need to settle that debate to decide whether some things are lucky. It seems obvious to me that the person who was hit by lightning (on a clear day, if you like) was unlucky, and the person who wins the lotto is lucky.

Here’s how I understand luck. I think something is lucky (or unlucky) for a person if two things are true of it: it matters (somehow) to them, and it might easily not have happened. The second condition needs some explanation.

To say that something might easily not have happened is to say that, given how things were at the time just before, the event might well not have occurred. We might think of this in terms of replaying the event. If I set up the pool table again and ask you to retake the shot, we can discover whether your shot was luck or skill. We will need to do it a few times: you might get lucky twice, but you very unlikely to be lucky ten times in a row.

If every time you try (roughly) the same shot, you sink it I will have to concede: that’s skill, not luck. But if you can’t do it again, you were lucky the first time. Similarly, someone was unlucky to be hit by lightning if it is true that were they to be in similar conditions again, they (probably) would not be hit by lightning. If, on the other hand, lightning is so prevalent around here that any time anyone goes out they get hit, then they weren’t unlucky.

If this is right, there can’t be lucky or unlucky people. At least, there can’t be people who have the property of having lucky events happen to them. Whether I am lucky in doing something depends on how skillful I am at doing things like that. If I’m really good at it, then I am less lucky at succeeding than if I am bad at it.

So, roughly, the more often something happens to someone, the less luck is involved. Of course someone can be lucky or unlucky twice: lightning can strike twice. But the person who is lucky twice, or more, is not a lucky person: their past luck doesn’t give us any reason to expect luck in their future.

There is one way in which we can say that someone is lucky or unlucky. Rather than compare an event to what we would expect to happen, given roughly the same circumstances, we might compare a person’s circumstances or their traits to what is statistically normal for a group. Using this kind of measure, we can say that someone born severely handicapped is unlucky and someone born into wealth is lucky.

What is the relevant group for this kind of comparison? I don’t think there is a single right answer here: it will depend on the context and our aims. For some purposes, a narrower group might be relevant, and for some, a broader. This entails that the same person might be said to be both lucky and unlucky.

Think of the contemporary Australian who loses her job, through no fault of her own. We might say she is unlucky, comparing her to other contemporary Australians. But compared to humanity as a whole, she might be lucky if she remains able to feed and house herself.

This same kind of context sensitivity and relativism is characteristic of luck in events as well. The same event can be lucky and unlucky for a person. Think of someone who misses her flight and takes another one, which then crashes. She is unlucky to be involved in a plane crash, given that she might easily have been on the earlier flight. But if she is the only survivor, she might be lucky, given that everyone else died.

That’s why we can find ourselves saying of someone who has broken three ribs and both legs that they are lucky.

Neil Levy is the author of Hard Luck: How Luck Undermines Free Will and Moral Responsibility.

• Quantum mechanics
• Determinism

Research Fellow

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life

Essay Samples on Luck

Luck is when opportunity meets preparation.

The adage "luck is when opportunity meets preparation" encapsulates the intricate interplay between chance and readiness in achieving success. This essay delves into the profound wisdom of this statement, exploring how preparation lays the foundation for seizing opportunities and how serendipity often arises when one...

• Opportunity

The Move “Better Luck Tomorrow” by Justine Lin

The move, illustrates an image hidden behind well-mannered students of Sunny Hills high schools who are trying hard to over achieve. The main characters Ben and Virgil is showed as those over achievers of high schools who are known for their grades and extracurricular activities....

• Human Behavior
• Social Movement

The Point Of View Of Luck: Matter Of Preparation Meeting Opportunity

You probably also know this from yourselves: days when everything doesn't go as it should, days when everything goes wrong. Sometimes you wonder if you could help your luck a little. The phenomenon of luck not only fascinates us, it is also a constant companion...

• Positive Psychology

Scientific Discovery And Invention: Necessity Is The Mother Of Invention

Hundreds of inventions and discoveries appear every day. Do you think all inventions are intentional? And are discovered after research and experimentation? I don’t think so. A famous quote states: “Necessity is the mother of invention.” That is true to a great extent. However, many...

The Measure Of Success: Luck Or Hard Work

Whether Hard Work or luck? What is more powerful? My approach to answering this is: Hard work can overcome bad fate and it conveys immeasurable luck and also extends its consequence. In childhood, we are prepared to study harder and we are often taught that...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Success And Luck: The Influence Of Hard Work On Success

'Success and Luck: Good Luck and the Myth of Meritocracy' examines the role of luck in success, claiming that success is much more due to luck than is generally believed. The book has the merit of offering both a very concrete analysis of the role...

Cultural Views and Legends Surrounding Clover

Cambridge dictionary defines a clover as “a small plant with three round, green leaves that are joined together”, but in a field full of three-leaf clovers, finding a four-leaf one could have a special connotation its signifier gives us a feeling of joy and suspicion...

The Interplay of Luck, Effort, and Motivation in Achieving Success

Luck wields a momentous influence over an individual's triumph. This assertion holds true, as luck opens doors to favorable events even when the odds are low. However, can we declare that only those blessed with good fortune can achieve success? What about the unfortunate ones?...

How Much Luck Matters in Achieving Success in Business: Analysis of the Studies

The controversy of the topic of luck and success in the world of business has always been discussed and argued about. Successful business people share their views on the importance of luck in business, and even then, there are disagreements being faced. People often see...

Analysis of David Roberts' Article The Radical Moral Implications of Luck in Human Life

'The radical moral implications of luck in human life' by David Roberts It is not hard to perceive any reason why numerous individuals complain when helped to remember their good fortune, particularly the individuals who have gotten the most. Taking into account fortunes can gouge...

Best topics on Luck

1. Luck Is When Opportunity Meets Preparation

2. The Move “Better Luck Tomorrow” by Justine Lin

3. The Point Of View Of Luck: Matter Of Preparation Meeting Opportunity

4. Scientific Discovery And Invention: Necessity Is The Mother Of Invention

5. The Measure Of Success: Luck Or Hard Work

6. Success And Luck: The Influence Of Hard Work On Success

7. Cultural Views and Legends Surrounding Clover

8. The Interplay of Luck, Effort, and Motivation in Achieving Success

9. How Much Luck Matters in Achieving Success in Business: Analysis of the Studies

10. Analysis of David Roberts’ Article The Radical Moral Implications of Luck in Human Life

• Career Goals
• Personality
• Cohabitation

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

clock This article was published more than  2 years ago

Is luck real, and can you change yours? It’s complicated.

Sometimes, everything seems to go wrong. You’re passed over for a job. Your back aches. Your zipper breaks. Your cat keeps throwing up. Faced with setbacks large and small, you feel like your life is always taking a turn for the worse. You aren’t superstitious, but you begin to wonder — could you just be an unlucky person? Why does it seem like you can never catch a break?

I myself have been feeling this way lately. In hopes of improving my outlook, I turned to three experts who helped me understand why we believe in luck and how we can harness that belief to make real changes in our attitude toward life that may help us feel less “unlucky.”

What is luck?

People define luck in three ways, according to Jacqueline Woolley, professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. First, we often use the term luck as synonymous with “chance”; we may call it lucky to win at a slot machine, although it’s actually a random event. Another way to frame luck is “as a supernatural force that exists in the universe,” she said. This force may touch on different people at different times, and some people believe (or hope) it also can be harnessed, with a ritual or charm. Third, it can be thought of as a personal trait: “It’s just something that you’re born with.”

The friendship checkup: How to reevaluate relationships and take steps to repair them

But does it exist? Richard Wiseman , author of “ The Luck Factor ” and professor of the public understanding of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, doesn’t believe there’s anything magical or superstitious about luck — it won’t help you out or hurt you at the casino. On the other hand, considering yourself lucky or unlucky is “a way of seeing yourself which then has impact on how you behave and how you think and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, in a sense, it absolutely does exist.”

And it has “existed” for ages. “Pretty much, in every culture throughout recorded history, people talk about superstitious rituals or chance — as indeed we do now, even with our amount of science and technology,” Wiseman said. “It’s something deep within us that realizes our lives are ruled by chance, and we’re trying to do something to get control over that.”

Woolley agrees. “We as humans are very uncomfortable with uncertainty,” she said. “When people feel less in control of their lives — like when they feel that things are random and they’re not directing their lives — then people often search for supernatural explanations.”

Luck’s role in real life

Vik Loveday conducted a small study of United Kingdom academic employees that illustrates that point. Between 2014 and 2015, the senior lecturer of sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, interviewed 44 academic employees who were on temporary contracts, a precarious employment situation that caused anxiety and financial instability and an overwhelming sense of lack of control.

In general, when one of these academics learned about good news concerning their careers, such as getting a permanent job or having a grant accepted, they would attribute it to luck. Because they felt they had so little control, a move in a positive direction had to have happened almost by accident, rather than as the result of hard work.

Why you always think your friends are mad at you — even when they’re not

Of course, academics aren’t the only people who attribute events to luck. Through his years of research, Wiseman has found that, in the United Kingdom, “You get roughly 12 percent of the population saying they’re extremely lucky and about 8 percent saying they’re unlucky.”

In a 2021 study and ongoing research, Woolley has looked at this idea in children. Between about ages 4 and 8, they are exposed to the concept of luck through sources like family, school, books and the Internet. By age 10, however, they start to get skeptical. They’ve begun to notice that, “when they wish for something, it doesn’t happen,” Woolley said. “They’re starting to realize that, if a kid forgets her lucky charm and loses a race, it’s not because this supernatural force was missing in her life that day — it was because she forgot her lucky object and that made her stressed and anxious, and that’s why she lost the race.”

Still, this doesn’t stop the belief from persisting into adulthood — and even our reliance on charms and rituals. For example, former president Barack Obama would play basketball to improve his electoral chances. Basketball player Michael Jordan had to wear his college practice shorts under his NBA uniform.

Woolley notes a 2010 study — which she wasn’t involved in and which other researchers haven’t been able to replicate — that found that being told a golf ball was lucky improved participants’ chances of making the putt. “Obviously it’s not luck that’s causing this. It’s that these superstitious rituals give you confidence and then you do better,” Woolley said. “If you think it’s going to make you play better, then chances are you’re going to play better.”

How to think about luck

Is it possible to change your outlook on luck, and, if so, could that lead to better outcomes?

The first thing to understand is that a person’s position in society contributes to their concept of luck. “The circumstances you’re born into, the society you’re born into, the genetic makeup you’re handed — all these things are outside of your control,” Wiseman said.

Aside from these constraints, however, he believes there are steps you can take to improve your luck. After studying people who consider themselves lucky or unlucky, he has found that the “lucky” ones maximize chance opportunities and dare to follow their intuition to grasp those moments.

“If you are relaxed and happy, your world view becomes bigger and you see more opportunities,” he said. “If you’re a flexible person, when those opportunities come in, you’ll make the most of them. Lucky people know where they’re heading, but often they change the course depending on how the wind is going.”

Lucky people also expect good fortune and turn lousy experiences to good. “They tend to be — surprise surprise — optimists, and they’re also very resilient to bad things that happen,” Wiseman said. “If bad things happen, it’s thinking, ‘Okay, it could have been worse,’ rather than ‘It could have been better.’ ”

This may affect your future luck, Woolley explained. “If you feel better about an event, then maybe you’ll have better expectations about future events and maybe your luck, quote unquote, will change.”

As for specific activities, you can shift your focus toward the positive by keeping a “luck diary,” Wiseman said. “Each night before you go to bed, you spend about 30 seconds writing down a positive thing that’s happened that day, or a sense of gratitude for friends or family or health, or a negative thing that’s no longer happening.”

You also need to take the long view; breaking your leg could be considered a setback now, but if you meet your future spouse in the hospital, it could end up being a very fortuitous one.

Plus, don’t be a creature of habit. Take a different route when walking, watch a different TV program, speak to different people — even small changes can be effective. And then keep your eyes open and be prepared to snatch whatever opportunities might arise.

People who are “lucky” have “a broader focus and they’re more likely to encounter chance opportunities and then good things can happen,” Woolley said. “People who think of themselves as unlucky are just really sort of stuck in their narrow focus.”

What you can’t expect is for good fortune to magically come your way without effort. “Luck is a very big part of our self-identity,” Wiseman said, “and isn’t very malleable until you do something quite concrete about it.”

Galadriel Watson is a freelance writer and author of many children’s books. Find her at galadrielwatson.com and on Instagram at @galadrielwatson .

Is ‘good luck’ real? What about ‘bad luck’?

When we defer to luck to explain our circumstances, we may be short-changing ourselves..

My husband and I say it to each other all the time: “I’m so lucky to have met you.” We say it even though we don’t really believe in luck (or at least, I don’t). It’s a word bandied about all the time – and once you’re aware of it, you notice how often it’s used. I overhear it in snippets of conversation at cafes: “Lucky I brought an umbrella today!” And in small talk at barbecues: “I’m lucky I get to work from home.”

We say it so often we don’t really think about what that even means. What is luck? And something I’ve been wondering lately: is it just spirituality in disguise?

We tend to think of luck as being a windfall of good fortune that’s unexpected, against the odds or not available to (many) others. That implies that some benevolent force is favouring us in a particular circumstance, while perhaps looking unfavourably on other humans. It’s a way of saying: ‘I’ve got away with something I maybe shouldn’t have.’ Is that good luck, or is it simply what happens when a good outcome collides with low expectations? Is ‘luck’ just a label we use because we’re scared of the disappointment that might follow if we let ourselves believe we really can have nice things?

I have no authority to speak on behalf of The Universe, but I strongly suspect that ‘luck’ isn’t really how the divine operates. If we were afforded a glimpse at the gospel of divine order, I really doubt we’d see luck listed as a tenet. I don’t know how good outcomes are allocated, nor how bad outcomes are doled out, and I doubt there is an answer that would satisfy me on either front. But I, for one, am trying to avoid using the term ‘luck’ to explain what happens in my life. 

Luck suggests either a randomness or deservedness (or lack thereof). I’m not sure either is a helpful lens to look at the way our lives play out. This sort of thinking belies the power we have to shape our fortunes. For example, if you’re describing yourself as lucky for getting a sweet job, you’re dismissing all the hard work you put in to get to that point. And if you win the lottery, you might be overlooking the fact that the Universe is trying to give you a leg up.

In her book, You can heal your life , Louise Hay describes an American man who manifested $500 but was in such shock and resistance to this good fortune he broke his leg. The cost of the doctor bills? You guessed it: $200. I may be remembering this anecdote wrong (it’s been at least a decade since I least read that book), but the author suggests he was so uncomfortable with good outcomes he inadvertently attracted a situation to relieve him of it. This could be true. But I wonder if the Universe knew the doctors’ bills were coming and sent him the money to pay for it. We’ll never know.

I’ve worked with a few clients who deeply believe they are unlucky people. They have come to accept that good things happen to other people, but for some reason, not to them. When something crappy happens, they think: ‘Well of course it was going to end badly for me.’ Their expectations are so low that they stop trying to make positive changes in their lives, and if they do, they predict that it won’t work out (a belief that, unfortunately, tends to energetically increase the chances of a negative outcome). With clients like these, my job is to clear the limiting beliefs from their energy such as ‘nothing ever works out for me’ and ‘If I expect the worst, I’ll be safe’. I then instil healthy beliefs around deservedness, and foster an ability to believe in good outcomes. Of course, this cannot protect them from negative outcomes, but ideally it will stop them thinking that loss and heartbreak are a fait accompli, and gives them a platform of empowerment to attract better outcomes.

I started this newsletter talking about my relationship, so I’ll pick up that thread again to wrap this up. For many years, I described myself as unlucky in love. I didn’t understand then that I wasn’t chronically single due to bad fortune, but because it wasn’t our time yet (oh, and there were also a whole bunch of unhealthy beliefs and emotional blocks keeping love at bay – but that’s a story for another newsletter). I met my husband at that particular bar on that particular night not because I was suddenly lucky, but because it was our time to meet. If we hadn’t met then, we would have met some other way... I assume. This is how divine order works – or at least, that’s as much of divine order as I’ll ever understand. But it’s probably easier just to describe it as luck.

Ready for more?

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Luck vs Hard work Essay & Debate for Children & Students (300 words)

December 22, 2017 by Study Mentor Leave a Comment

How we can define luck or hard work? Are they important parameters in some one’s life? Will they help to succeed in career, family or daily livelihood? Which is better luck or hard work?

There is a great saying “The more I practice, the luckier I get.” By Gary Player.

Whenever we do some work we should know its background and outcome. All parameters are not enough to succeed in life but all you need is luck and over all that you need hard work. If you give your 100% hard work then you will definitely succeed but apart from hard work you need luck too because both plays equal role in a person’s life.

We have two kinds of mentality which selects either work hard and take rest or take rest and then work hard. What you want to be? Generally hard work is built in such a way that it can kill much bad luck and attracts good luck and give fruit as an output.

Table of Contents

Luck and Hard Work

There are two types of people, one is dependent on luck and wait for outcome as success which will come to their door steps and other do continuous hard work to achieve success and success welcome them.

Deciding that which is important among luck and hard work is a question that has only two options. But you can’t figure out which will be more important in your life as a result we choose intermediate option which is ‘both’.

Hard work is important but if you do work for your entire life and never give yourself some personal space or time then that work will never give enjoyment. On the other hand if your luck is so good that you win a lottery or you inherit something unexpected then again you will be wasting your life without doing anything.

Story of two friends

I will tell you one incident through which you can decide among the two options.

There were two friends Tom and Michael. Both are working in a same company. Tom was a hard worker; he does his job perfectly with in dead line. He was so busy in work that he was unable to give proper time to his family. Hence he gained multiple promotions but he remained apart from his family because work became his priority.

On other hand Michael was a free person who believes in luck and leaves everything on his luck. He is enjoying his life without taking care of his work and family. At the end of day Michael can’t able to succeed in his job and got terminated because he was unable to perform what he was capable of doing.

Above given both scenarios tells us that both hard work and luck are incomplete if we depend on any one of them.

Many lucky people don’t use their luck in proper way and their life becomes miserable because they continuously ignore their real work. Moreover money is not everything as money can’t give satisfaction and money alone can’t make your life meaningful.

If you spend your whole life dreaming of winning a lottery some day (so that you will be free from your work) and you do not want to do something meaningful in your life, this means that you are wasting your life. If you somehow someone wins a lottery at the age of 60 then you will forget you work you have done in your whole life because your luck made you to win that lottery, but that there will be no use because it can affect your family also.

To become a successful person in your life and to enjoy your life along with your dear ones then you must do your work with interest which motivates you more and more.

Sometimes we are forced to do some work which we do not like but try it as a task and slowly develop your passion for it then your hard work and luck definitely helps you to achieve flying colors.

You make prayers in front of god, you recall your parents or god before going to give exam or you go to meet someone and want positive reply then you believe in hard work as well as in your luck.

If you get out from your bed to do your work which fills you with more excitement then you are in right direction as your luck will become building blocks for your hard work.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on my School
• Summer Season
• My favourite teacher
• World heritage day quotes
• my family speech
• importance of trees essay
• autobiography of a pen
• honesty is the best policy essay
• essay on building a great india
• my favourite book essay
• essay on caa
• my favourite player
• autobiography of a river
• farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
• essay my favourite teacher 200 words
• internet influence on kids essay
• my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

• Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

• Class 1 Students Scholarship
• Class 2 Students Scholarship
• Class 3 Students Scholarship
• Class 4 Students Scholarship
• Class 5 students Scholarship
• Class 6 Students Scholarship
• Class 7 students Scholarship
• Class 8 Students Scholarship
• Class 9 Students Scholarship
• Class 10 Students Scholarship
• Class 11 Students Scholarship
• Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

• About Study Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

• Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
• Ashirwad Scholarship
• Bihar Scholarship
• Canara Bank Scholarship
• Colgate Scholarship
• Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
• E District Scholarship
• Epass Karnataka Scholarship
• Fair And Lovely Scholarship
• Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
• Inspire Scholarship
• Jio Scholarship
• Karnataka Minority Scholarship
• Lic Scholarship
• Maulana Azad Scholarship
• Medhavi Scholarship
• Minority Scholarship
• Moma Scholarship
• Mp Scholarship
• Muslim Minority Scholarship
• Nsp Scholarship
• Oasis Scholarship
• Obc Scholarship
• Odisha Scholarship
• Pfms Scholarship
• Post Matric Scholarship
• Pre Matric Scholarship
• Prerana Scholarship
• Prime Minister Scholarship
• Rajasthan Scholarship
• Santoor Scholarship
• Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
• Ssp Scholarship
• Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
• Ts Epass Scholarship
• Up Scholarship
• Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
• Wbmdfc Scholarship
• West Bengal Minority Scholarship
• Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

14 Good Luck Superstitions from Around the World

By suzanne raga | mar 24, 2023, 1:46 pm edt.

Finding a four-leaf clover, carrying a rabbit’s foot, and crossing your fingers are considered symbols of good luck by many. Athletes famously engage in superstitious rituals—basketball legend Michael Jordan reportedly wore the same pair of shorts under his NBA uniform for every game, and tennis star Serena Williams ties her shoelaces the same way before every match and always bounces the tennis ball five times before her first serve. Good luck superstitions, ranging from small gestures to elaborate observance, exist in cultures all over the world. Here are 14 of them.

1. THROW BROKEN DISHES AT HOUSES // DENMARK

In Denmark, people save their broken dishes throughout the year in anticipation of throwing them on New Year’s Eve. Danes chuck the broken plates at their friends' and family’s houses as a way to wish the recipient good luck in the year to come. Some Danish (and also German) children opt to leave a pile of broken dishes on the doorsteps of their friends and neighbors, in a less aggressive manner of wishing prosperity.

2. SWEEP DIRT AWAY FROM THE FRONT DOOR // CHINA

In China, it's believed that good fortune enters your life through your front door. Just before the New Year, Chinese people follow a tradition of thoroughly cleaning their homes to bid farewell to the previous year, but to avoid sweeping all that good luck out, the home is swept inward and collected in a pile to be carried out the back door, never through the front. In fact, no cleaning is performed at all during the first two days of the New Year so that no good luck can be swept away.

3. EAT A DOZEN GRAPES AND WEAR RED UNDERWEAR TO RING IN THE NEW YEAR // SPAIN

When midnight strikes to usher in a New Year, Spaniards eat 12 green grapes for 12 months of good luck. They eat one grape at each bell toll, chewing and swallowing quickly , and they wear red underwear while doing so. The superstition involving grapes dates back to century ago when there was a grape surplus, and the red underwear originated in the Middle Ages, when Spaniards couldn’t outwardly wear red clothing because it was considered to be a devilish color.

4. BIRD DROPPINGS ARE A SIGN OF GREAT THINGS TO COME // RUSSIA

Rather than view a bird defecating on them as a disgusting surprise, Russians welcome it as a sign of good luck and fortune. To Russians, bird droppings on you, your home, or your car signifies that money will be coming your way. Don't worry, if multiple birds defecate on you, you’ll supposedly get more money.

5. SPILL WATER BEHIND SOMEONE // SERBIA

According to Serbian folk stories, spilling water behind someone is a great way to give them good luck. Because moving water is fluid and smooth, it confers good luck to the person you spill it behind. Serbians spill water behind their friends and family members who are preparing to take a test, face a job interview, or go on a trip.

More Articles About Superstitions:

6. HANG UPSIDE-DOWN TO KISS A ROCK // IRELAND

A woman kissing the Blarney Stone, circa 1950. Getty

The legendary Blarney Stone at Ireland’s Blarney Castle attracts visitors who kiss the stone to get the gifts of good luck and eloquence. Visitors who want its good luck must walk to the top of the castle, lean backwards, and hold on to a railing so their lips can reach the stone. Kissing the inconveniently located stone is a risky enough process that castle employees  help visitors by holding on to their bodies as they lean back.

7. WEAR A SURROGATE PENIS // THAILAND

Boys and men in Thailand believe that wearing a palad khik , or surrogate penis amulet, under their pants will bring them luck. Carved from bone or wood , the surrogate penises are under 2 inches long and are thought to lessen the severity of potential injuries for the wearers. Some men wear multiple penis amulets—one for good luck with women and another for good luck when gambling or fighting, for example.

8. BRIDES SHOULD PUT A BELL ON THEIR DRESSES // IRELAND

Irish brides wear small bells on their wedding dresses or jewelry, or they put bells in their bouquets. The bells are worn as a symbol of good luck because the ringing allegedly discourages evil spirits intent on destroying the union. Guests may also ring bells during the ceremony or give bells to the couple as a wedding gift.

9. SAY THE WORD ‘RABBIT’ WHEN YOU WAKE UP // UNITED KINGDOM

A good luck superstition that originated in the United Kingdom involves saying “rabbit” right after you wake up on the first day of the month. Whether you say “rabbit,” “white rabbits,” or “rabbit, rabbit,” the ritual will supposedly give you good luck for the rest of the month. The superstition has been around since at least the early 1900s , and even President Franklin Roosevelt reportedly said “rabbit, rabbit” to usher in each new month. If you forget to say it in the morning, for the same results simply say “black rabbit” or “tibbar, tibbar” (rabbit spelled backwards) right before you go to sleep instead.

10. RUB SPECIAL INCENSE ON YOUR ACHING BODY PARTS // JAPAN

The front of the Sensoji Temple in east Tokyo, Japan has a giant incense burner that visitors go to for a “good luck” smoke bath. This ancient Buddhist temple, the oldest in Tokyo, was founded in 628 CE and Japanese people view the incense as holy for its healing powers. Visitors come to stand around the incense, waving the smoke around their bodies, to receive good health.

11. THE NUMBER EIGHT IS GREAT // CHINA

Speaking the number eight in Chinese sounds similar to the word for fortune and prosperity, so people in China love anything having to do with eight. Chinese people schedule marriages on dates involving the number, and everything from flight numbers to phone numbers are more lucky if they have eights in them. With this superstition in mind, the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing started at 8:08 p.m. on 8/8/2008.

12. EAT BEANS ON NEW YEAR’S EVE // ARGENTINA

Argentinians prepare themselves for the New Year by eating beans for good luck. Whether they eat them on New Year’s Eve or New Year’s Day, Argentinians believe that the beans will bring them luck and security in their jobs. A cheap and deliciously easy way to gain a sense of job security and peace of mind for the year to come!

13. ACCIDENTALLY BREAK BOTTLES OF ALCOHOL // JAPAN

After he accidentally knocked a full bottle of Scotch off the shelf at the bar where he worked, a clumsy bartender in Okinawa, Japan felt humiliated and assumed he would be in big trouble. Instead, the owner and patrons cheered because they believed that breaking the bottle brings good luck and higher profits to the bar. Intentionally knocking alcohol bottles onto the floor isn’t auspicious, though—it has to be an accident.

14. PLANT A TREE TO CELEBRATE YOUR WEDDING // THE NETHERLANDS AND SWITZERLAND

In the Netherlands and Switzerland, some newlyweds plant a pine tree outside their home to bring good luck and fertility to the marriage. Other couples incorporate trees into their actual wedding ceremony, believing that the trees will bring good luck and bless their union.

All images via iStock unless otherwise noted.

Lucky idioms: Talk about fortune or wish someone good luck

Do you consider yourself a lucky person? Whether you feel like luck is always on your side or you’re a bit down on your luck , these lucky idioms will help you describe the situation. You can also use some of these to wish someone good luck ahead of a big event.

Idioms can be hard to understand when you first see them, so we have included definitions and example sentences with all of these idioms about luck.

Lucky idioms

Beginner’s luck.

Talk about lucky idioms, and beginner’s luck may jump to mind. This is the good luck that people who are new to something are said to experience.

“I can’t believe that she only started gymnatiscs 6 months ago and won the champinonship today. Beginner’s luck I guess?”

Push your luck

This idiom about luck is not about good luck. When you push your luck , you are taking a risk by continuing to do something, hoping that you will be successful.

It suggests that you have already been fortunate to some extent, and now you should stop asking for more or continuing a certain action.

“Ok, I’ve lisened to your argument and can agree to a few small changes, but don’t push your luck.” “You had pancakes for breakfast and now you want an ice cream?! I know we’re on vacation, but don’t push your luck!”

The luck of the draw

Here’s an informal way to say that the outcome of something can’t be controlled and is simply down to chance.

The luck of the draw may be used as a sports idiom , said at sporting events in which teams are drawn out at random to play each other. However, you can also use it when discussing other situations you can’t influence.

“I can’t believe York City is playing Man United. I guess that’s just the luck of the draw!” “I’m gutted that I’m working the night shift all week, but that’s the luck of the draw sometimes.”

Although this idiom is not strictly about bad luck, it is generally spoken to offer some consolation when things didn’t work out as hoped.

Strike it lucky

Here’s another good luck idiom found mainly in British English. When you strike it lucky , you have unexpected good luck in a certain situation.

“I really struck it lucky and passed the test.”

A similar money idiom is to ‘strike it rich’, meaning to suddenly or unexpectedly acquire a great deal of money.

Luck on your side

Saying that someone has luck on their side is simply another way of saying that they are lucky. Often it is used in the past tense to say that they were fortunate with the outcome of a certain situation.

“Looks like luck is on our side today. My mother just called to say she won’t be coming to dinner after all.” “Although she was a novice she had luck on her side, and made her way into second place.”

Down on your luck

Conversely, someone who is down on their luck is having a string of bad luck, or it seems like things are just not going well for them in life.

“James seems down on his luck these days. He lost his job and then his girlfriend.”

Interestingly, the opposite ‘up on your luck’ is not a valid idiom about luck.

Some idioms about bad things happening could also be helpful to describe this kind of situation.

Lucky streak

Normally, a lucky streak would describe a string of wins in a casino while gambling. However, you can use it whenever someone keeps winning any kind of game, or indeed when they have just been fortunate in a series of events.

“She’s won ten games in a row. She’s really on a lucky streak.”

As luck would have it

Here’s a good luck idiom made popular by William Shakespeare. Nowadays, we simply say  as luck would have it , but originally it included the word ‘good’. This phrase describes a lucky occurrence.

“I thought I didn’t have any money for the taxi home, but as luck would have it, I found $10 in my jacket pocket!”

For more details on the play this is from and other Shakespearian sayings, enjoy our William Shakespeare idioms list .

You should be so lucky

Idioms about luck can be said about yourself, someone else, or a situation in general. If someone mentions that you should be so lucky , they are being informal and a little sarcastic. They are saying that whatever you are talking about is highly unlikely to happen or be successful.

“I entered the competition to win a new car.” “Ha! You should be so lucky!”

This luck idiom can be used in the first person too, to say that you doubt something will happen to you.

“Me, win the lottery? I should be so lucky!”

Born under a lucky star

This is a fun good-luck idiom that you’ll hear from time to time. When someone seems to be very fortunate or simply does well no matter what they apply themselves to, you could joke that they were probably born under a lucky star .

“I can’t believe that Dave is being fast-tracked to the management position. He really was born under a lucky star.”

It’s curious how quite a few star idioms are about luck and good fortune.

Happy-go-lucky

Although this looks like a lucky idiom, it is more about a personality trait. Someone who is happy-go-lucky is cheerful and unconcerned about the future; a relaxed person, who doesn’t plan too much and likes to take each day as it comes.

‘She’s such a happy-go-lucky child.”

Discover some more happiness idioms here.

Bless your lucky stars / Thank your lucky stars

The saying bless or thank your lucky stars is a lovely way to say you feel grateful for something or someone, or to suggest that someone else adopts this attitude.

“I thank my lucky stars I met you.” “You should bless your lucky stars that you have a stable income.”

This good luck idiom alludes to the ancient belief that the stars somehow had an influence over people’s destinies.

Third time lucky / Third time’s the charm

A good example of idioms heard more in the UK than the US , these lucky idioms are used to suggest that after failing at something twice, you will succeed on the third try.

“Yes, I’m so glad that worked. The third time really is the charm.’ “I’ve failed my driving test twice, but third time lucky!”

The number three is mentioned a lot in English idioms, like ‘third time lucky’, ‘bad news comes in threes’, and ‘three’s a crowd’. So why is the number three so popular ?

You’ll be lucky

On the surface, you may think that saying they’ll be lucky is just a nice way to wish someone good luck. In fact, it’s said sarcastically meaning the opposite: that actually, whatever is being hoped for is very unlikely to happen.

“Oh, he wants to borrow the car for the weekend, does he? Well, he’ll be lucky!”

The Best of British to you

Some of these luck idioms are mainly used in the UK. When you wish someone the best of British ; you are wishing them good luck even though you believe they may not be successful.

“You’re going to ask for a raise? The best of British to you!”

Here are some more British-themed idioms to look through.

Break a leg

Believe it or not, to tell someone to break a leg is actually a way of wishing them good luck. This phrase originated in theaters, where saying the words ‘good luck’ is seen as unlucky. However, this expression is commonly used in other situations nowadays too.

“I heard your first show is tonight. Break a leg!’

Fingers crossed

This lucky idiom is something that you can do as well as say. You can either say fingers crossed or actually cross your fingers as a sign that you wish for someone or something to succeed.

“Sue has her fifth driving test this afternoon, so fingers crossed she’ll pass!”

There are lots more idioms for success that you can use to celebrate achievements.

Pot luck / Potluck

This saying has two meanings, depending on how you spell it. To take pot luck on something is to take a chance that whatever is available will work out or be good enough.

“Let’s not book anywhere. We’ll just take pot luck and see what’s availble when we get there.”

The other way potluck is used is more of an American English term . It’s a party or meal style in which everyone brings a dish for the buffet to share with everyone else.

“What are you bringing for the potluck at church this weekend?”

M ore by accident than by design

When something goes well or is achieved simply due to coincidence or luck, rather than the skill or planning of the people involved, you may hear someone say that it was more by accident than design .

“In the end we won the new busines account, but honestly it was more by accident than by design.”

Murphy’s law

Finally, it only feels right to end the list of lucky idioms with the polar opposite: Murphy’s law. This is a belief that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. A common example of this is a slice of bread landing buttered side down when dropped.

‘I can’t believe it’s raining on my wedding day. Talk about Murphy’s Law!”

There really are plenty of lucky idioms and ways to wish someone good luck in English. Leave a comment if you have any questions or can think of other luck idioms to add to this list.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and site URL in my browser for next time I post a comment.

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Manage your order and communicate with your writer using the customer center.

• Price quote

With experience gained since 2003, EssayPride successfully completes 98% of all incoming orders. Select options, proceed, and consider your paper done!

Search our huge database of over 200,000 free example essays and research papers nearly on any topic imaginable!

Superstitions good and bad luck example essay topic.

• Will To Meaning

Things every student should keep in mind

• Free example essays found anywhere online are available to anyone, which makes them used, re-used, paraphrased, and abused millions of times.
• Watch out, some are poorly written!
• We strongly discourage you to submit free essays or any of their parts for credit at your school -- they are easily detected by PLAGIARISM CHECKERS.
• Get a brand-new, 100% original paper that will be written especially for you following YOUR EXACT instructions.

100% money back, no questions asked if you paper is plagiarized (this won't happen anyway).

We use a simple but effective principle: one satisfied customer will come back for more, but one who was cheated and misled will tell 10 others too.

Our clients are treated with the highest level of respect that a legitimate student deserves. You, as a customer, will feel this attitude starting from your first contact with our essay service and all the way through.

A significant percentage of cheap essay writing services have also been the source of complaints from students for selling cut and pasted work off the net -- this is a world away from the personalized essay service that EssayPride offers. All our guarantees are always kept -- we are nothing without quality, affordable prices, and the high degree of customer satisfaction!

What our customers say

Piotr S. Toronto, Canada

I am an ESL student and I am only learning how to write good papers in English. Thanks to EssayPride I am mastering this skill much faster. They help me because they always respond any questions and explain me things I do not understand. They also strictly follow the deadlines and I am never late with my assignments. Thank you very much, guys, your hard work is appreciated. I will surely be ordering more.

Lindsay M. Winston Salem, NC

Oh my Gosh! My life has become sooo much easier after I've come across this website. I am a working student, so sometimes I am too overwhelmed with so many things and I really need a hand with my papers. I am glad I have found a company I can trust. I have confidence in these guys, because they proved to be good quite a few times.

Kirk N. Austin, TX

I never leave reviews for products or services because I am quite particular and picky. Surprisingly enough, EssayPride has managed to satisfy all of my requirements, even though I asked for several alterations to the paper they've sent initially. My assignments are quite complicated and it is essential to possess a certain level of knowledge in order to write a decent paper. These guys have managed, so I give them four stars.

Emma Ch. Birmingham, UK

Customer service is very responsive to your queries, they answer any question within an hour. Even if you have a problem with an order, you can contact them and they will fix it promptly. The quality of writing is very good, writer knows what he is talking about. I had a very positive experience using this website, I will be a returning customer.

Travis J. Perth, Australia

I used this website more than once and every time my experience turned out to be extremely positive. I think their price-quality ratio is very good, because I couldn't find anyone writing better than these guys, who would work for this money. Thank you!

Myung O. Seoul, South Korea

I am a Korean student studying in the US. I would like to thank essaypride staff, especially writer Jeff P., for helping me out so much. My grades are good with all your help and I keep calm about the results of my year.

Boyi Zh. St. Louis, MO

As probably any student, I was quite hesitant about asking somebody else to do my assignments at first. However, after EssayPride has sent me my first paper and I've read it, I understood that I could actually learn a lot from them. The research they've done was impressive and I understood the topic even better than after going to class and reading my textbook. I am not using this website to "cheat", I am using it as a tutoring service, they help me to understand the material better.

Samples of professionally written essays produced by our company. Feel the difference!

• Marketing Strategies
• Memoirs of the Four Wars
• The Use of Internet Filters
• Female Figures
• Advertising Plans

Free example essays, top 50

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

© 2003-2024 EssayPride.com

Our website uses cookies. By continuing, you agree to their use. Learn more , including how to control cookies.

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Culture and Lifestyle
• History and Traditions

15 Southern Superstitions We Dare Not Dispute

Whether you heard it through the grapevine or from your mama, these superstitions are well-known around the South.

Miscellaneous Meanings

Fred Hardy, Food Stylist: Karen Rankin, Prop Stylist: Christine Keeley

It's no secret that the South is filled with traditions of all kinds. Whether it's as simple as a holiday ritual or as impactful as a way of life, traditions and customs are what our existences unique. Most traditions in Southern families have been passed down from generations, including some superstitions.

From cultural to regional to familial folklore, any Southerner is bound to believe in a superstition or two. While some superstitions like opening an umbrella inside and seeing a black cat cross the street are relatively universal, the South has its own superstitions that have been shared for centuries. Check out this list of superstitions from Southerners all over the region to learn more about the history behind the traditions and, of course, how to maximize your good luck.

Things To Do For Good Luck

Paint your porch ceiling haint blue.

If you walk onto a porch in the South, chances are high that the ceiling may be painted a beautiful shade of sky blue. This isn't quite for aesthetic purposes—painting your ceiling this hue, known as haint blue, will keep evil spirits from entering your home.

This superstition started on the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina. The Gullah Geechee communities in the region are descendants of Central and West African enslaved people, and they painted their porch ceilings sky blue as a means of protection. "Haints" is the colloquial pronunciation of "haunts," or spirits of the dead. The Gullah believed that the color would act as a repellant for "haints," as the spirits would confuse the color for the sky and bypass their homes when looking for a place to enter.

Eat Black-Eyed Peas and Collard Greens on New Year's Day

If you're ringing in the new year in the South, you'll likely be offered a bowl of black-eyed peas and collard greens to start your day. While these two Southerner favorites taste delicious, it isn't served just for flavor—these two foods will bring you good luck for the rest of the year.

According to Southern food researcher John Egerton , black-eyed peas are associated with a "mystical and mythical power to bring good luck" and have been grown in the South for over three centuries. As for collard greens, they're green like money to secure financial success for the year.

Bury a Bottle of Bourbon a Month Before Wedding Day

No one likes surprises on a wedding day, but sometimes Mother Nature has her own agenda. Avoid a rainy wedding day by burying a bottle of bourbon exactly a month before your wedding day. Many couples will bury it upside down for extra luck.

Hang a Horseshoe Above a Doorway

When adding decorations into your home, don't forget to throw in some horseshoes. While they're always placed above a doorway for good luck, there are a few different interpretations of which orientation to hang them. above the doorways.

Some people believe that hanging a horseshoe pointed down allows good luck to spill into any who walk under it and stop evil from entering. Others believe that hanging it pointed up allows for good luck to be stored and collected.

Put Up a Bottle Tree in Your Yard

If you walk around a neighborhood in the South, you may find a striking tower of blue glass bottles on a porch or in a garden. Bottle trees are fascinating structures that are used for protection against evil spirits, and are a tradition brought over by enslaved Africans.

The folklore says that glass bottles were extremely powerful and could both attract and capture evil spirits at night. Spirits would become hypnotized by the bottles' bright colors and reflections, trapping them until the morning sunlight killed them.

Things To Avoid That Bring Bad Luck

Laurey W. Glenn

Don't Leave a Rocking Chair Rocking

Rocking chairs are a staple on Southern porches, but they can bring bad luck if used improperly. If you get up from a rocking chair and leave it rocking, you are inviting spirits to sit. Be sure to stop the chair from rocking before you leave!

Don't Bring Bananas on a Fishing Trip

If you're ever in charge of loading the cooler for a fishing trip, don't even think about packing bananas. This tradition has been around since the 1700s when trade ships from the Caribbean and Spain were sailing the seas. Legend has it that if a ship was found wrecked, bananas were the only items found floating amongst the wreckage. This lead seamen to believe that the bananas had caused the ship to sink, and the superstition continues to stay in effect around docks down South.

Don't Do Laundry on New Year's Day

Doing your laundry on New Year's Day is said to be washing away any good luck for the rest of the year. Some also say that this applies to any form of washing and cleaning, so put your to-do list down and leave it for another day this year.

Don't Step On Iron Train Tracks

Trains run through innumerable of towns across the South, but be careful when walking across them. Not only are they dangerous, some Southerners say that stepping on the iron train rails when crossing a railroad will bring bad luck.

Don't Split a Pole When Walking With Someone

If you're taking a stroll with a friend or loved one, stay alert and stick close together to keep the camaraderie secure. It's said that splitting up and walking on either side of an obstacle, such as a pole or a tree, will cause bad luck and allow something to come in between you and the person you're walking with.

Robert Winkler /Getty Images

If Your Nose Itches, Company Is Coming

Is your nose itching out of nowhere? Bring out the welcome wagon. Southerners believe that an itchy nose means you've got company coming over soon.

If Your Palm Itches, Money Is Coming Your Way

While itchy palms can feel like a nuisance, you'll be pleased with the results. Southerners believe that an itchy palm means you'll be getting money soon.

If Your Ears Burn, Someone Is Talking About You

Got burning or red ears? Look out for gossip. Southerners believe that burning ears out of nowhere means that someone is talking about you.

If You Get a Chill Down Your Spine, Someone's Walk Over Your Grave

Ever get a random shiver up your spine? Southerners believe that a chill up your spine is someone walking over the spot where your future grave will be.

If You See a Red Cardinal, A Loved One Is Visiting

See a bright redbird flying around or perched on a branch? Southerners believe that a sighting of a redbird (or a Northern Cardinal) means a loved one is coming to pay a visit.

Related Articles

Taking Control Over Your Life – How To Get Rid Of Bad Luck?

Every person, regardless of their spiritual awareness, knows that good and bad luck exists.

Some things can’t be explained the other way, and it’s essential to know how to turn your luck around.

Bad Luck Is Not Always A Punishment

Many people feel that bad luck is a punishment for something they did.

Bad deeds are indeed noticed and punished in some way, but sometimes you have to analyze things deeper.

Sometimes a period of bad luck is a test for you. Sometimes it’s a test of your faith and spirit.

In some situations, a period of bad luck is a good thing. Sometimes you feel like all these bad things are happening, but they’re actually good for you in the long run.

When you feel like you’re too tired and drained from all the bad luck, you should do something about it.

This article will give you a few tips that will help you to get rid of your bad luck. You will learn how to change your life for the better and attract good luck.

Before you start applying some of these tips to your life, remember that the key to success is patience and consistency.

Therefore, don’t give up too soon and focus on your life more than ever.

1. Change Your Perspective

It’s hard to be positive and cheerful when you feel like your life is falling apart.

But, changing your perspective will help you. Everything that happens to you is a lesson and experience.

Try to think of yourself as strong. Don’t feel defeated and try to find something good in every bad thing.

Try to see those bad things as signs that you will experience spiritual transformation.

Try to be optimistic about your future. Believe that you will be rewarded with amazing things.

You can endure everything because the higher forces choose you. You’ve chosen to live through everything.

Don’t be worried, broken, and sad. Try to stay stable and calm. Try to see the meaning in everything and you won’t feel like your life is being consumed by bad luck.

Your perspective can change so many things. You can heal yourself if you’re willing to make some changes.

2. Work Hard And Focus On Your Goals

When bad luck strikes, most people lose their focus, willingness, and stability.

This is normal, but if you want to change your situation, you have to take control of your mind.

Focus on your goals and work hard no matter what. Don’t give up when something bad happens.

If needed, start over with some things. Don’t pay too much attention to your bad luck.

Look at it as a bad period that won’t stop you from accomplishing your goals.

Your dedication and concentration will help you to attract peace and good luck.

Your guardian angels, spiritual forces, and the Universe will support you because they will all be proud of your commitment.

You need to prove that nothing can ruin your progress. Be a hard worker and pay attention to the right things only.

3. Be A Better Person

I’ve mentioned that your bad luck may be a punishment for something you did.

Even if you feel like this isn’t the case, try to be a better person. Try to open your heart and mind to others.

Focus on yourself, but don’t be selfish. Try to support others and be nice to everyone.

Share your knowledge and experiences. Be compassionate and understanding. Be supportive and humane.

Try to do something nice every day if you want to get rid of your bad luck.

Try to attract good luck with good deeds and a pure heart. Maybe your bad luck is a warning that you’re not being the best version of yourself.

Maybe you’re ignoring other people’s feelings and needs and that’s why you’re being punished.

You were created to co-exist with others. You are a good person, but everybody loses their direction sometimes.

Think about real values in life. Think about your spirit and emotions. Don’t neglect your spiritual practices, praying, or meditating.

You can fix your past mistakes and you can avoid bad luck by being a good, devoted person.

4. Be Fearless

When bad luck becomes present in every area of your life, it can be a sign that you’re ruining your life.

It may look like your goals and priorities are good for you, but sometimes a stroke of bad luck is proof that you should change your life.

Maybe your life is falling apart because you have to focus on something else. Maybe you’re choosing the wrong things for yourself.

This is why you should be fearless when bad luck comes into your life.

Since you don’t know the reason for it, you should take some risks and make some positive changes.

You should think about your life choices. Think about your spiritual journey and challenges in life.

Think about all the people around you and your adventures. Maybe it’s time to write a new page.

Your bad luck wants you to change direction. So, if optimism, calmness, and kindness aren’t working, maybe you just have to make some drastic changes.

Maybe your choice of career or a partner is wrong. Maybe you’re wasting time on something useless.

Take some time and analyze your life, your needs, and your levels of happiness.

Your bad luck could be a sign that you should follow another path in life.

In Conclusion

There are many ways of analyzing bad luck. Some people think that it has to do with bad spirit and evil forces. Some people believe that it’s a punishment or a spiritual sign.

There are many things you can do to turn things around. You can change your attitude and shift your energy.

You can choose the way to handle bad luck, but all the tips from this article will benefit you.

I always felt a strong connection to the Divine since my birth. As an author and mentor, my mission is to help others find love, happiness, and inner strength in the darkest of times.

What Does It Mean When You See a Blue Jay? The Spiritual Significance of the Blue Jay Symbol

It is rare to see a blue jay — if you do, it could symbolize something big in your love life or spiritual journey, or even be a sign from heaven.

Every item on this page was chosen by a Woman's Day editor. We may earn commission on some of the items you choose to buy.

What do blue jays symbolize?

What do blue jays represent biblically and spiritually, what should i do if i keep seeing blue jays.

Living in most areas of the United States, from Florida to Canada, blue jays like to reside in pine forests, but they will venture out to feast from bird feeders , cool off in a bird bath , or take flight throughout neighborhoods. Making loud, distinctive whistle-like sounds, if you don’t see a blue jay, you can certainly hear one.

But when you see that flash of blue feathers whiz by you, you can sense that you just saw something special. And there’s good reason for that. Apart from blue jays being so elusive, they also hold spiritual meaning for those who believe. If you see them repeatedly, it may be that someone is trying to tell you something.

To dive deeper into the meaning of seeing a blue jay, read on for insights from a spiritual expert.

What is the meaning of seeing a blue jay?

Among spiritual experts, blue jays can symbolize several things. For instance, since blue jays have loud and unmistakable calls, people think of them as reminders to be clear, straightforward, and communicative. Some see blue jays as special spiritual messengers. And much like the bluebird of happiness, blue jays are frequently associated with joy and good vibes.

But as Nikenya Hall, MHR , an integrative coach, psychic medium, and author, points out, symbols of any kind can mean different things to different people. When it comes to seeing blue jays, Hall says, “Spirit will speak to you in a way that you will understand, which includes cultural and individual references and experiences.”

“Birds in general symbolize a transitioned loved one is with you,” Hall says. “Birds can also symbolize that a loved one wants to communicate with you — as birds are seen as messengers — so spotting them can mean that a loved one wants to get an important message to you.”

Since this includes all birds, this sentiment is certainly true when you repeatedly see blue jays.

Hall says that if we look at the color blue — considered to be one of the main colors associated with healing — and connect it with the overarching meaning of repeatedly seeing a bird, a blue jay can mean three things spiritually:

• A transitioned loved one is sending you healing thoughts and energy.
• Seeing a blue jay validates that you are in need of some healing support, and a transitioned loved one on the other side is giving that to you.
• It can also mean that a transitioned loved one is nudging you to seek out healing, particularly from a practitioner (therapy, psychic reading) or experience (take a healing trip, book a therapeutic massage, try Reiki).

Although blue jays are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, their meaning can be tied to biblical ideologies. For instance, with their booming calls, one might believe that seeing blue jays is a nudge to spread the Word of God.

“Connect with the blue jay,” Hall advises. “See if the blue jay will let you get close to it. Pay attention if a certain loved one pops in your mind, smell their perfume/cologne, or actually feel their presence. The blue jay is a messenger and can act as a conduit of energy and bring your loved one closer to you on this Earth Plane.”

If you spot a blue jay in your dreams, Hall says that a loved one is trying to communicate with you and they are taking a softer approach.

“Ask your loved ones to come directly in the next dream,” she says. “If the blue jay is leading you somewhere, pay attention to the place — it might be a place where you can get healing.”

While Hall reaffirms that seeing a blue jay is a good omen, she emphasizes that different symbols hold different meanings depending on your experiences.

“If a blue jay harmed you as a child, that is not the symbol your transitioned loved one would use to let you know they were around,” she says. “Lean on your individual beliefs first.”

Honor the Blue Jay Symbol

Blue Jay Stained Glass Window Hanging

Sterling Silver Blue Jay Necklace

Blue Jay Journal

Shelby Deering is a lifestyle writer who specializes in decor, home tours, wellness, travel, vintage, and feel-good stories for national publications. She’s from Madison, Wisconsin, and when she’s not writing, you’ll find her running local trails, shopping flea markets, or going for walks with her husband and corgi.

.css-2lr79s:before{top:1.4rem;left:calc(-50vw + 50%);width:100vw;height:0.0625rem;z-index:-1;content:'';position:absolute;border-top:0.0625rem solid #CDCDCD;} Lifestyle

The 80 Most Inspirational Bible Quotes to Read

If You Keep Seeing 1144, Read This ASAP

80 Best Gift Ideas for Your Husband

115 Funny Quotes to Make You Laugh

The Best Vet-Approved Flea Treatments for Cats

We All Have a Life Path Number — What's Yours?

65 Pirate Jokes That Will Hook You Right Away

55 Best Father's Day Gifts on Amazon

Chick-fil-A Is Releasing A New Chicken Sandwich

Luke Bryan on Katy Perry Leaving 'American Idol'

13 Summer Blessings for Vacation

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• May 24, 2024   •   25:18 Whales Have an Alphabet
• May 23, 2024   •   34:24 I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders
• May 22, 2024   •   23:20 Biden’s Open War on Hidden Fees
• May 21, 2024   •   24:14 The Crypto Comeback
• May 20, 2024   •   31:51 Was the 401(k) a Mistake?
• May 19, 2024   •   33:23 The Sunday Read: ‘Why Did This Guy Put a Song About Me on Spotify?’
• May 17, 2024   •   51:10 The Campus Protesters Explain Themselves
• May 16, 2024   •   30:47 The Make-or-Break Testimony of Michael Cohen
• May 15, 2024   •   27:03 The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System
• May 14, 2024   •   35:20 Voters Want Change. In Our Poll, They See It in Trump.
• May 13, 2024   •   27:46 How Biden Adopted Trump’s Trade War With China
• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand

I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders

The move sets up a possible showdown between the international court and israel with its biggest ally, the united states..

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Patrick Kingsley

Produced by Will Reid ,  Diana Nguyen and Shannon M. Lin

Edited by Liz O. Baylen and Michael Benoist

Original music by Elisheba Ittoop

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

This week, Karim Khan, the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, requested arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the country’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

Patrick Kingsley, the Times’s bureau chief in Jerusalem, explains why this may set up a possible showdown between the court and Israel with its biggest ally, the United States.

On today’s episode

Patrick Kingsley , the Jerusalem bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Why did a prosecutor go public with the arrest warrant requests ?

The warrant request appeared to shore up domestic support for Mr. Netanyahu.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Patrick Kingsley is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. More about Patrick Kingsley

Advertisement

Home » Good luck quotes

• Good luck quotes

Does someone that you know have exciting changes coming in the near future? Let him know that you care and encourage him by wishing the best of luck on all his endeavors. On this page we have a great collection of good luck quotes, messages and wishes for the future as well as beautiful good luck cards and images, so you can choose the one that you like the most.  

Best of luck wishes

I want to wish you good luck, good luck for every occasion, good luck for every endeavour. Believe in yourself, do not be afraid of obstacles, strive for success, do not miss opportunities. Best of luck to you, my friend!

I wish that luck was only on your side, so that it would not even think of leaving you for a second. May everything work out and come true. You were working very hard and you deserve only the best. Good luck!

I want to wish you endless success. May luck, as the most faithful companion, always be there. May luck never let you stumble or make wrong choices. May fortune bring big victories to you, and fate play only by your rules!

May this day be filled with good moments. I wish everything would turn out exactly the way you want! Believe in yourself, in your strength and step forward towards new victories and achievements! Be sure that everything will definitely be fine and don’t forget to smile. Good luck to you!

May the path of your life be strewn with stones of luck that block the way to despondency, resentment, problems and sadness. Use these stones to build a ladder to great success. Wish you lots of luck.

Good luck wishes for future

As Meg Rosoff once said, “every day a piano doesn’t fall on my head is good luck”. Your day doesn’t have to be perfect to be a lucky one. Enjoy every second of it, and Fortune will never leave your side.

“Here’s the thing about luck…you don’t know if it’s good or bad until you have some perspective.” I love what Alice Hoffman did there. Try to perceive everything as a good luck, and your life will change for the better. 

Barbara Sher said, that “the amount of good luck coming your way depends on your willingness to act”. Sure, luck is important, but it means nothing if you don’t do anything with your life. Go for it. 

“We are all a great deal luckier than we realize, we usually get what we want – or near enough.” Do you agree with what Roald Dahl said? I do. The Universe hears you, and It well always give you what you deserve. Good luck!

“You don’t get lucky while sitting in the sofa with arms crossed doing nothing. You can be lucky only when you are prepared.” Right? Nesta Jojoe Erskine definitely knew something about life. Don’t be afraid of anything, good luck!

Good luck messages

Luck is actually a karma giving you what you deserve. I know you are a good person, and karma is on good terms with you. Therefore, I’m sure you are one of the luckiest people in the world. Just don’t be afraid! 

Life is a journey full of ups and downs, but a little bit of luck will help your ups to occur more often. The world is yours. Do your best and forget the rest. Good luck! 

If you never try, you will never know. I know life can be scary sometimes, but someone as lucky as you should not be afraid of anything. Wishing you all the best luck in the universe. 

May the best luck come to you every time you need it the most. The Goddess of Fortune sees and hears you. She knows when you need Her the most. Trust in Her, and everything will be just fine! 

Your luck is nothing but a secret knowledge of what the best solution is. You have that knowledge somewhere deep inside of your subconscious. Believe in yourself, and you will become the luckiest person on Earth.

matched content

Best of luck quotes.

Every human needs a little bit of luck to call it magic. Passed the hardest exam in the world? Magic. Cut some onions without bawling your eyes out? Absolute magic. Everything is possible if you believe in it. 

Being lucky means trusting yourself. Listen to your heart, and every minute of your life will be the luckiest and happiest minute. I hope that luck will always accompany you on a journey called life. 

Good luck! Life is full of difficulties and different barriers, but you can do anything as long as you believe in yourself. Luck is just a nice complement to your amazing strong spirit. Keep your head up!

Feeling extra lucky today, so I decided to share some of my luck with you. Use it wisely and never forget that believing in something makes it real. It’s always up to you, bud. Don’t waste your power. 

I know you think you that don’t need luck, because you are smart, but everyone needs it from time to time. Just take a moment to thank Fortuna for Her amazing gifts. Good luck, mate!

Good luck for the future quotes

Everyone needs a little bit of luck from time to time. When your intelligence meets luck, you will become more than a human being. Can’t wait to see it. Good luck, buddy!

Can you say that you are a lucky person? What is luck? So many questions, yet no answers to be found. But I know that luck is always a good thing, therefore I wish you the best of it. Keep your head up.

Luck is Karma’s youngest daughter. What you do now will eventually come back to you in a form of fortunate or unfortunate events. That’s what you call luck, right? Be kind to everyone around you, and luck will always be with you.

Don’t depend on luck. Use your brain to cope with every difficulty in your life, and you will see that something you call luck has always been inside of you. 

Luck is a secret ingredient in the recipe for a perfect life. Sometimes you have it, sometimes you don’t, and it’s surely hard to find. But you have a lifetime to find your luck, and I wish you to do it as soon as possible. 

Good luck sayings

Luck is actually a secret knowledge. You don’t have to count on something as ephemeral as luck, because you have a great knowledge hidden inside of you. Call it intuition, call it whatever you want, the one thing always will remain the same: it will help you to cope with everything. 

Luck is your destiny trying to show you the right path. Listen to your heart, remember that the first thought is the best thought and that someone is always watching you. 

Luck helps only those who really deserve it. I’m sure you do, so don’t you worry about anything. May the fortune always be by your side to guide you through your darkest and brightest days.

I think lucky people are those who listen to their hearts and know that every choice is a choice that they made for a reason. There is always a reason for every little thing in our crazy world. You just have to wait to see it.

I believe in destiny, so I do believe that luck is just a bunch of decisions made before you were born. Just follow the flow. It will lead you to a place where you feel as good as it is possible.

Every day is a gift. It can be really amazing, but it can be disappointing also. But I want to wish good luck in everything that happens in your life. May your life bring you only pleasant and helpful gifts!

They say that luck chooses only the strongest ones. And if it so, I’m sure it will follow you wherever you go, because you try really hard to succeed in all your undertakings. And you will. Good luck!

You need luck every second of your life, you don’t have to rely on it, but you have to have it, because if you don’t have luck, your life is just black and white, but luck brings in every other colour in your life!

Luck is everywhere around you, you just have to find it and if you do, it won’t leave you!

You need luck to survive, but you also need skills you need luck to do something crazy, but you also have to be crazy, so I wanted to wish you lots of luck on your journey through life!

You might also like:

Good luck for new job quotes

Good luck for exam quotes

May good and inspiring thought come to you every time you need them the most and may all bad and depressing ones go away and never turn up anymore! Think positively and good luck!

Maybe life is not perfect, but you can make it that way, All you need is happiness, joy, laughter, love and lots of luck!

Never stop believing, Stop thinking about quitting, You can do this, we’re with you and we wish the best of luck to you!

Forget about quitting, And think only about winning. Keep running no matter what. Belief and courage is all you need. Go ahead and do it, I bet you‘ll be the winner. Best of luck to you!

Luck? I don‘t rely on it. Anything thing is success – First of all it is a hard work, day after day, And everything you do must have a purpose. Also it is realizing what is the true opportunity and what is not. It is seeking for your goals with determination and belief. Being thankful for what you already have. Being positive and never looking back. Best wishes to you, pal.

Happy new month messages

• Encouraging messages for friends

A good mood is the key to success. That’s why you should stay cheerful no matter what happens in your life. Keep going and good luck!

We need to be hurt sometimes In order to grow. We need to fail sometimes In order to gain. We need to loose sometimes In order to gain. Cause the best lessons in life Are learned through pain. Good luck!

Success may come and go away, But your achievements will stay. Hard work may take fun of today, But it leaves all the things to cherish for tomorrow. Best of luck!

In order to achieve great goal, We must act, but also dream, We must plan, but also have a belief. Good luck to you!

Although there is no perfect life, But we are able to fill it with lots of perfect moments. Good luck to you!

What a wonderful day to reach all your goals and make the most desired dreams come true! I wish that you’ll take this opportunity and succeed in everything you do. Good luck!

Our mistakes are painful, However we have to be thankful for them, Cause those mistakes, if you learn from them, Will lead you to success. Good luck!

Although you‘ll meet people who will hate you, Shake you or break you, However how strong you will stand is what makes you! Best of luck to you!

Remember that failure will defeat losers But the same failure will inspire the winners. I wish you to be always the winner, good luck!

Wishing you: Joy in our eyes, Love in your heart, Strength in your hands Talent in your mind And lots of happy moment in your life. Good luck!

The only thing that is able to attract luck is a genuine smile. Wake up, smile at the world and wait a little bit… I’m sure luck will delight you with amazing surprises if you keep smiling. Good luck!

I heard that successful people are big dreamers, They imagine what their perfect future would look like And then work hard every single day To make it a reality. So I wish you strength and determination In seeking your dreams.

Wishing you: Success – bright as gold, Friends – firm like diamonds, Love – deep like the ocean, Happiness – warm and shiny like the sun. Best of luck to you!

Success cannot be permanent As well as failure is never final, So never stop trying, Never give up and always seek for your goals!

Past is the experience, present is the experiment And future is the expectation. I wish you to use you experience wisely in your experiments, So that all your expectations come true. Good luck to you!

May all your problems be easily solved, may all your undertakings throughout the day be successful and may your soul fill with peace and harmony! Good luck!

Your hope is the source of light in your road to success, So never lose it. Wishing you all the best!

Always remember that pressure is what makes a diamond from lumps of coal. So don‘t be afraid of it. Take care and good luck to you.

There is no royal road to success, However when you become successful, Every road will be royal for you. Best of luck to you!

I want to wish you a really good day that will bring you a lot of great pieces of news and unforgettable events. I hope that fortune will treat you kind during your whole life. Good luck!

Good and successful day starts with warm sunny rays, pleasant shower and a cup of coffee. But the main element is self-confidence and belief in luck. Have a very successful day!

May luck be a frequent visitor in your house! May it bring much happiness, peace and love with it! I’m sure you really deserve to be successful. Good luck!

Luck is important, but you still have to work very hard in order to succeed. Patience, diligence and ambitions constitute 90% of luck, that’s why I really wish you to find will in yourself and fight for what you really want.

The only weapon from regrets and concerns is optimism. Be optimistic, resilient and cheerful, because all these positive feelings are like magnet for luck and happiness. Wish you good luck and success in everything you do!

I wish that your guarding angel follow every step you take. May it help you tackle all problems and defeat failures! Good luck!

The great future belongs to those who have strong vision and determination. And it doesn‘t matter where are you now, Starting well and finishing strong is all that matters. Wishing all the best to you!

I wish you to succeed in everything you do: in work, family and relationships with people. May all your dreams come true! Believe in luck and yourself and you’ll see how many wonderful things can become possible when you have a faith.

May the sun warm you up, may your friends and family fill your life with light and love and may luck never leave you!

A new day has come and it’s going to bring you many unexpected events and surprises, so may luck be on your side and make all these events really happy, pleasant and positive. Good luck!

May good fortune become your faithful companion during your life and take a good care of you every second of it! Wish you good luck in small businesses and long-term undertakings!

Luck is very changeable and moody, but I wish that it always be on your side and bring you many amazing surprises. Good luck!

Luck is such an amazing thing, But not many people have it so today I want to wish you lots of it!

We were all born with luck, but not all of us have discovered it, I wanted to wish you good luck on finding you luck!

Please remember that whatever you do, we will support you, and all we want is to wish you the best of luck in your future!

All you need in life is luck, you have to rely on it, and rely on faith, these two things will help you progress in life! Good luck!

They say you need happiness, love, oxygen to live, But I think you also need luck, which is something I want to wish you today!

Success comes only to those who believe in themselves and are prepared to win. Good luck!

Luck is yours and wishes are mine, Let your bright future always shine. Good luck!

Success comes to those who do not hesitate and wait, But to those who are ready for it. Best of luck to you!

Wishing you to fly in the plane of Ambition and Inspiration And land in the prosperous airport of Success. Best of luck to you!

• Short birthday wishes
• Birthday anniversary wishes
• Birthday wishes for friend
• Birthday wishes for sister
• Birthday wishes for brother
• Birthday messages for mom
• Birthday wishes for dad
• Birthday wishes for daughter
• Birthday wishes for son
• Happy birthday wishes for girlfriend
• Happy birthday wishes for boyfriend
• Birthday wishes for wife
• Birthday wishes for husband
• Birthday wishes for teacher
• Love messages and love words
• Love messages for her
• Love messages for him
• Flirty quotes for her
• Flirty quotes for him
• Short wedding wishes
• Wedding wishes for friend
• Wishes for newly married couple
• What to write in a wedding card
• Wedding wishes for brother
• Wedding wishes for sister
• Wedding anniversary wishes for wife
• Wedding anniversary wishes for husband
• Wedding anniversary wishes for friends
• Wedding anniversary wishes for parents
• Good morning messages for her (girlfriend or wife)
• Good morning messages for him (boyfriend or husband)
• Good morning messages for friends
• Good morning messages for lover
• Good night messages for her
• Good night messages for him
• Good night messages for friends
• New job quotes
• Good luck for exam messages
• Life quotes
• Quotes about people
• Sayings about love
• Motivational quotes for working out
• Break up messages for her
• Break up messages for him
• Encouraging break up messages
• I am sorry messages for her
• I am sorry messages for him
• Happy New Month messages
• Family day messages
• Women’s Day Wishes
• April fools messages for friends
• Easter messages for friends
• Happy Mother’s Day messages
• Father’s day wishes and messages
• Independence day quotes
• Teacher’s Day messages
• Diwali wishes
• Housewarming wishes
• Happy Monday quotes and messages
• Best friend wishes
• Friendship messages
• Thank you messages for friends
• Newborn baby girl wishes
• Newborn baby boy wishes
• Graduation messages for friends
• Happy Friday quotes
• Happy weekend wishes
• Happy journey wishes
• Happy retirement wishes
• Christening messages
• Get well messages for friend
• Get well messages for boss
• Get well messages for colleague
• Engagement messages for friend
• Engagement messages for brother
• Engagement messages for sister
• Thank you messages for boss
• Funny messages for friends
• Goodbye messages for friend
• Christmas wishes for family
• Christmas wishes for mom and dad
• Christmas wishes for friends
• Christmas wishes for her
• Christmas wishes for him
• Christmas wishes for teacher
• Christmas wishes for boss
• Christmas wishes for colleagues
• Christmas wishes for Facebook with images
• New Year wishes for family
• New Year wishes for friends
• New Year wishes for her
• New Year wishes for him
• New Year wishes for Facebook
• New Year poems for family and friends
• Business New Year wishes
• Christmas wishes for company clients
• Valentine’s day messages for her
• Valentine’s day messages for him
• Valentine’s day messages for friends