Chapter 39 Exercises: The Ethics of Luck

Level 1: Recall and Comprehension

1.1 Describe Thomas Nagel's four types of moral luck in your own words. Give one original example of each that was NOT used in the chapter.

1.2 What is the central distinction Nagel draws between moral luck and straightforward bad luck? Why does the concept of moral luck create a problem for conventional moral judgment?

1.3 How does Bernard Williams's response to Nagel differ from simply agreeing or disagreeing with him? What is Williams most concerned about that Nagel doesn't fully address?

1.4 Define "luck egalitarianism" in two to three sentences. Name three philosophers associated with this school of thought and describe how their positions differ from each other.

1.5 What is the difference between Dworkin's "brute luck" and "option luck"? Give two examples of each. Why is the boundary between them difficult to maintain in practice?

1.6 According to the chapter, what does meritocracy get right and what does it get seriously wrong? List at least two claims in each column.

1.7 What is the research finding about the relationship between meritocracy belief and prosocial behavior? What mechanism does the chapter suggest explains this counterintuitive result?

Level 2: Application

2.1 Apply Nagel's four types of moral luck to the following scenario:

Two students submit essays of identical quality to a college admissions office. One is admitted; one is not. Investigation reveals the difference was that the admissions officer reading the rejected applicant's essay had just had an argument with a family member and was in a heightened stress state.

For each of Nagel's four types (resultant, circumstantial, constitutive, causal), explain what role it plays in this scenario. Which type is most morally significant, and why?

2.2 Dworkin distinguishes brute luck from option luck. Classify each of the following and explain your reasoning. Note any cases where the distinction is genuinely unclear:

a) A student from a high-income family attends a school with AP courses; a student from a low-income family attends a school with none. b) An entrepreneur starts a business in 2018 that is destroyed by the 2020 pandemic shutdown. c) A person born with a genetic predisposition to anxiety takes medication that partially controls it. d) A content creator posts a video that happens to be picked up by a major account and goes viral. e) A recent graduate applies for a job that requires five years of experience she doesn't have yet.

2.3 The chapter argues that meritocracy's criteria for "merit" reflect the preferences of those who design the systems. Choose one real-world meritocratic measure (for example: SAT scores, grade-point average, performance review ratings, interview performance, publication count in academia) and analyze how it might systematically advantage some groups over others independent of underlying ability.

2.4 Apply Elizabeth Anderson's democratic egalitarianism framework to the same scenario from exercise 2.1. How does her approach — focused on social relationships rather than origins of inequality — produce a different analysis than Dworkin's approach?

2.5 Priya mentions in a team meeting that her hiring was facilitated by a network connection. What are the potential costs and benefits of this kind of honest disclosure? When is it worth it?

Level 3: Analysis

3.1 The chapter argues that acknowledging structural luck "protects against arrogance." Analyze this claim more carefully. What is the causal mechanism by which accurate luck attribution prevents arrogance? Is this claim always true — are there cases where accurate luck attribution might produce different psychological effects?

3.2 Bernard Williams's Gauguin example suggests that moral evaluation is entangled with outcomes the agent couldn't have controlled. Apply this insight to one of the chapter's recurring characters — Nadia, Marcus, Dr. Yuki, or Priya. Choose a decision they made earlier in the book where the outcome was uncertain. How does Williams's framework change how you evaluate that decision?

3.3 The chapter notes that the "error on the left" in the luck debate is to treat structural disadvantage as so total that individual agency is effectively erased. Analyze this claim: what are the real cases where structural constraints are so severe that individual agency is genuinely overwhelmed? What are the cases where structural disadvantage is severe but agency remains meaningfully present? How do you draw the distinction?

3.4 The research finding that meritocracy belief reduces prosocial behavior is described as "counterintuitive." Why might someone expect the opposite? Construct the best argument for why believing in meritocracy might actually increase prosocial behavior — and then explain why the empirical evidence suggests that argument is wrong in most contexts.

3.5 The chapter describes "having honest conversations" about luck as one of the most underrated forms of luck acknowledgment. Analyze the social and psychological obstacles to this kind of conversation. In what contexts is it hardest? Why? What would make it easier?

Level 4: Synthesis and Evaluation

4.1 The luck egalitarianism position holds that inequalities resulting from unchosen factors are unjust. Write a 400-word response from the perspective of a critic who argues this position proves too much: if we must compensate for all unchosen disadvantage, including constitutive luck in character and inclination, aren't we committed to a form of social engineering that is both impossible and corrosive of individual autonomy? Then write a 200-word reply defending luck egalitarianism against this critique.

4.2 Evaluate the "obligation to luck acknowledgment" claim in the chapter. The argument runs: (1) structural luck is real and consequential; (2) people who have benefited from it have an obligation to acknowledge it; (3) this acknowledgment shapes behavior toward greater generosity and moral accuracy. How strong is this argument? What are its weakest points? Under what conditions might the obligation be waived or diminished?

4.3 The chapter argues that structural reform and individual action are "both/and rather than either/or" responses to structural luck inequality. But resources are finite — time, money, political capital. When you must choose, is there a principled basis for choosing structural reform over individual action, or vice versa? Develop a framework for making this choice.

4.4 Compare and contrast the moral luck framework with the self-serving attribution bias (introduced in Chapter 1). Both concepts involve people misattributing outcomes — but they operate differently and have different implications. Write a 300-word analysis that distinguishes them and explains how they interact.

Level 5: Structured Ethical Reflection

This is the capstone exercise for Chapter 39. It asks you to do what the chapter describes as the most important and underrated response to structural luck: have the honest conversation with yourself.

The Personal Luck Ethics Audit

Part A: Mapping Your Structural Luck (30 minutes)

Create a three-column table with the headings: Domain | Lucky | Unlucky

Complete it for each of the following domains, being as specific and honest as possible:

  • Birth circumstances (family wealth, stability, parents' education level)
  • Geography and historical moment (country, city, era)
  • Health and physical characteristics
  • Education quality and access
  • Social network quality and access at key moments
  • Race, gender, and other socially significant identity markers
  • Specific timing (being in the right place at a key moment, or wrong place)

Do not rush this. The goal is not a complete accounting — that's impossible — but the practice of looking honestly, which most of us avoid.

Part B: The Success Audit (20 minutes)

Choose three successes you are genuinely proud of. For each, complete the following:

  1. What did you do that produced this success? (Skills, effort, choices)
  2. What constitutive luck made this success more accessible to you than to others?
  3. What resultant luck shaped the outcome in your favor?
  4. What circumstantial luck (right place, right time) was involved?
  5. On a rough scale: what percentage of this success was skill/effort, and what percentage was various types of luck?

Part C: The Obligations Question (20 minutes)

Given what you found in Parts A and B:

  1. Do you believe you have obligations that follow from your structural luck advantages? If yes, what are they? If no, why not?
  2. What forms of obligation feel most appropriate or most natural to you — giving, mentoring, advocacy, honest conversations, something else?
  3. What is one specific thing you could do in the next 90 days that would constitute a meaningful response to your structural luck? It does not need to be large. It needs to be real.

Part D: Reflection on the Process (10 minutes)

  1. What was most surprising about Parts A-C?
  2. What was most uncomfortable? Why?
  3. Did the exercise change anything about how you see yourself, your achievements, or your obligations? What changed, and what didn't?

Note for group settings: If completing this in a class or workshop, share only what you are comfortable sharing. The exercise is primarily for your own benefit, not for performance. The discomfort is part of the value.

Bonus: The Luck Ethics in the News

Find a current news story (from the past 30 days) that involves a debate about merit, luck, and justice — for example, debates about inheritance taxes, affirmative action, executive compensation, athlete salaries, or social safety net programs.

  1. Identify which of Nagel's four types of moral luck is most relevant to the debate.
  2. Map the positions of the main participants onto the luck/merit axis: who is implicitly arguing that outcomes are deserved (merit), and who is arguing that they reflect factors outside individuals' control (luck)?
  3. Apply Elizabeth Anderson's democratic egalitarianism lens: set aside the question of whether luck or merit produced the inequality. Ask instead: does this inequality create social relationships of domination, exclusion, or unequal democratic participation? What would Anderson say should be done about it?
  4. What position do you take, and why? Be honest about which parts of your position are value judgments rather than factual claims.