Abstract

In this Article, I elaborate on and defend the following argument: There is no moral luck. If there is no moral luck, there should be no legal luck. Therefore, there should be no legal luck and ). If there is no normatively significant difference between the law doing and allowing, or intending and foreseeing, then there is no normatively significant difference between legal luck and just plain luck that has legal implications. There is no normatively significant difference between the law doing and allowing, or intending and foreseeing. Therefore, there is no normatively significant difference between legal luck and just plain luck that has legal implications and ). Therefore, plain luck should have no legal implications and ).