Abstract
This paper argues for a particular account of luck by comparing two
distinct versions of the modal account of luck that have been provided by
Duncan Pritchard (2005, 2014). More specifically, it argues that there are three
respects in which Pritchard’s earlier modal account of luck is preferable to his
later account: it accounts better for the fact that luck comes in degrees, it includes
a significance condition, and it better acknowledges the subjective nature
of luck. The paper then discusses two consequences of the points it makes for
epistemology: an alleged pragmatic encroachment, and a particular view on the
relation between knowledge, luck, and justification.