Admittedly, I
need to read more on the literature surrounding the issue of luck as it
pertains to libertarian accounts of freedom. Nonetheless, I want to share a
brief story and relate it to the issue of luck. “Luck” is a technical term in
philosophy, meaning something like “an event that takes place over which the
agent has no control.” As an example, consider the person born into a wealthy
family. That person had no control over that; he just as easily could have been
born into a poor family, or middle-class. In this case, it is an instance of
luck (as it would be whatever class he was in).
Here’s a story
that I find interesting: I had received a jury summons for Wake County. I was
advised to call in the night before my appointed date, and a recording would
inform me whether or not I was needed. As it turns out, I was not, and my
obligation was considered fulfilled. But suppose instead I decided to stick it
to the man and not bother calling, intending to skip the entire process. As far
as I would know, I was in violation of the court order, even though, in fact, I
was in compliance. In bringing this up with my co-workers, who are not
philosophers in the regular sense, we discovered an alternate scenario I am
calling the “Adam Rule.” The Adam Rule (AR) is borne out of a sadistic society,
and is as follows:
AR. If a
potential juror calls the line at the appropriate time, then she is excused
from jury duty. If she does not call, she will be arrested and executed.
Further, let’s
stipulate that AR is known only to the relevant authorities, and no potential
juror knows of or has reason to suspect something like AR is true. Now we can
analyze the relevant facts to see if the traditional luck explanation (luck is
something over which the agent involved has no control) holds.
1.
The juror’s calling in. This seems to be a fact over which the
potential juror has control and is not luck. The traditional model holds.
2.
AR. This seems to be a fact over which the potential juror has
no control, and yet is luck. Once again, the traditional model holds.
3.
The two outcomes: excused or executed. This is a fact that the potential juror
seems to have at least partial control over, since whether the juror is excused
depends on whether or not she calls in, the latter fact having been granted “control
status” for the agent. Yet it is also a matter of luck, since the determiner of
the outcomes for the respective behaviors is not up to the potential juror.
So it may be
that issues of luck arise even for agents who exercise partial control with
respect to certain events. I’m open to hearing more, both for your opinions and
any relevant works with which you are familiar!
