Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article argues against proportion accounts of luck, favoring proximity accounts for understanding modal conditions.
In recent debates about the nature of luck, many philosophers defend a modal condition, according to which an event E is lucky for S only if E is modally fragile. However, there are two competing accounts of how this condition should be filled out: (1) proportion accounts focus on whether E fails to occur in a suitable proportion of possible worlds, whereas (2) proximity accounts focus on whether E fails to occur in a suitably proximate possible world. In this article I argue against proportion accounts and in favor of proximity accounts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samuel Kahn (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: