محمدامین خدامرادی

The main issue of this research is to examine Christopher Franklin's solution to Ensurance and Rollback formulation of Luck, and its purpose is to criticize this solution and show the ineffectiveness of his answer in a descriptive-analytical way. According to the problem of luck, the negation of determinism in the creation of an action leads to luck, and its requirement is the negation of free will. Franklin, who is one of the supporters of event-based causation, offers four formulations of this problem. Negation of determinism in Ensurance formulation leads to unguaranteed action and in the Rollback formulation, leads to the failure to predict the occurrence of an action at the moment of its occurrence. Franklin's answer is based on recognizing the proper location of indeterminism in the process leading to free action. According to him, by placing indeterminism at the moment of the basic action, the two formulations of luck can be solved. According to this interpretation, the agent's reasons, including his desires, goals and emotions, are the cause of free action. In this research, it is revealed that the indeterministic causality of the agent's reasons for free action, which is considered the central core of Franklin's view, is exactly where it leads to the randomness of free action, and as a result, the problem of luck remains valid.

The primary focus of this research is to analyze and critique John Martin Fischer’s proposed solution to the problem of luck. Using a descriptive-analytic method, the study aims to highlight its shortcomings. The problem of luck arises from the belief that the absence of determinism in the formation of actions undermines the agent’s freedom and moral responsibility. Fischer addresses this issue by reimagining one of Frankfurt’s examples in an indeterminate world, presenting two scenarios: one where the world is determined (world 1) and another where it is indeterminate due to a random machine (world 2). According to Frankfurt's examples, the agent in the first possible world bears responsibility. However, in world 2, if the machine happens to be randomly inactive, both worlds become identical, and the agent is deemed responsible. This research demonstrates that (a) Fischer’s framing of the problem of luck aligns with the formulation based on the absence of causation, but his response falls short in addressing this formulation effectively, (b) the causation governing Fischer’s world 2 differs from the indeterministic causation proposed by libertarians advocating for event-based causation. According to them, actively incorporating indeterministic causation into the causal chain of an action is crucial in addressing the problem of luck. However, in Fischer’s world 2, there is no active indeterministic causation involved in the causal chain of action. Therefore, Fischer fails to confront the problem of luck posed to event-based causation, let alone resolving it.