Restricting responsibility to pure control sounds fair but may leave little to assess once luck’s reach is acknowledged. Abandoning that restriction risks unfair blame. The puzzle is to preserve meaningful responsibility while distinguishing culpability from outcome, role, and the obligations agents acquire toward those actually affected.
Imagine two people with similar commitments who face sharply different opportunities for wrongdoing. Comparing their records does not show how they would have acted in each other’s circumstances. But refusing all assessment until every difference in luck is removed may leave no practical basis for judgment. A useful response distinguishes character, decision quality, actual harm, and duties of repair, then explains which forms of luck should affect each rather than seeking one verdict for all of them.