How can we determine which actions, if any, we are morally responsible for? At first, the concept of the control principle was in practice until people realized that they were not practicing it to the fullest; this led to the creation of the idea of ​​Moral Luck. Two philosophers with opposing views on the concept of moral luck were Nagel and Kant. I think Kant has a good basis for what he believes, but I don't think he has all the answers as to the role luck plays in our decisions. To begin, we should discuss what the control principle is. “The control principle states: we should morally evaluate an agent on the basis of a factor F only if F is under the agent's control.” Basically, we should only judge actions morally based on factors over which the agent has control. An example of this would be if we had two drivers on the road heading home. Let's assume that both of them follow all the rules and regulations of the road. Suddenly, a dog runs in front of one of the handlers, causing the dog to die. If you were to follow the control principle, both drivers would be morally evaluated the same. The killed dog was a factor uncontrollable for the officer. We should not judge him morally more harshly than the other driver because an unfortunate and uncontrollable event occurred. The problem with the control principle is that if you follow it exactly, you really can't hold someone morally responsible for their actions. Many factors go into decisions and actions. It would be almost impossible to decipher every little detail to know whether this was under the agents' control or not. So if you follow this principle you would pretty much say that no one is moral... middle of paper ...... in all parts you will see that was not his true intention. Jones was told that if he did not kill Smith, his entire family would be killed. Well, it's clear that Jones is going to want to save his family. Although Jones has respect for Smith, he cannot place him above his family. The real takeaway from this situation is that Jones had good intentions. He intended to save his family. Trying to save your entire family from being murdered by a hit man seems like a very good intention to any rational human being. Perhaps the fact that Smith and Jones were put in this situation was a matter of luck, perhaps even shooting Smith was. However, this is of no importance when you are trying to find out where the individual's true intentions lie. Basically luck plays a role in situations, but it's more about knowing where your intention lies in the grand scheme of things..