Abstract

The way in which luck impacts moral obligation has not been given sufficient philosophical attention. It is the subject of this thesis. I argue that just as there is a control condition that must be met in order for one to be morally responsible, so too there is a control condition that must be met in order for one to perform a morally obligatory action. The requisite control is captured by the principle that “ought” implies “can”. Exercising such control requires alternatives--namely that one both can and can refrain from performing any given action. However, through a series of cases, I will show that having such alternatives is often a matter of luck.