Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3):489 – 497 (2009)
| Authors |
|
| Abstract |
In 'What Luck Is Not', Lackey presents counterexamples to the two most prominent accounts of luck: the absence of control account and the modal account. I offer an account of luck that conjoins absence of control to a modal condition. I then show that Lackey's counterexamples mislocate the luck: the agents in her cases are lucky, but the luck precedes the event upon which Lackey focuses, and that event is itself only fortunate, not lucky. Finally I offer an account of fortune. Fortune is luck-involving, and therefore easily confused with luck, but it is not itself lucky.
|
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
| Categories | (categorize this paper) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00048400802421681 |
| Options |
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Request removal from index
|
Download options
References found in this work BETA
View all 12 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Luck as Risk and the Lack of Control Account of Luck.Fernando Broncano-Berrocal - 2015 - Metaphilosophy 46 (1):1-25.
View all 17 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Knowledge, Luck and Lotteries.Duncan Pritchard - 2008 - In Vincent Hendricks (ed.), New Waves in Epistemology. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Anti-Luck Epistemology and Safety’s Discontents.Jodeph Adam Carter - 2010 - Philosophia 38 (3):517-532.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2010-05-07
Total views
145 ( #80,623 of 2,506,010 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,506,010 )
2010-05-07
Total views
145 ( #80,623 of 2,506,010 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,506,010 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads
