How can we determine what actions, if any, we are morally responsible for? In the beginning the concept of the control principle was in practice until people realized that they didn't actually practice it to the fullest degree; 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 regarding 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 some factor, F, only if F is under the agent's control.” Fundamentally we should morally judge actions only on the basis of 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 you are following all the rules and regulations of the road. Suddenly, a dog runs in front of one of the drivers resulting in the death of the dog. If the control principle were followed, both drivers would be morally evaluated equally. The killing of the dog was an uncontrollable factor for the officer. We should not morally judge him more harshly than the other driver because an uncontrollable unfortunate event occurred. The problem with the control principle is that if you follow it exactly you can't really hold anyone morally responsible for their actions. Many factors enter into decisions and actions. It would be almost impossible to decipher every little detail and determine whether it was under the control of the agents or not. So if you followed this principle, you would basically say that no one is morall... halfway down the paper... in all parts you will see that this was not his true intention. Jones was told that if he did not kill Smith his entire family would be killed. Well, clearly Jones will want to save his family. Now, while Jones has respect for Smith, he can't put him before his family. The bottom line in this situation is that Jones had good intentions. He wanted to save his family. Trying to save your entire family from being murdered by a hitman seems to be a good intention in the eyes of any rational human being. The fact that Smith and Jones find themselves in that situation could be a matter of luck, perhaps even the act of shooting Smith was a matter of luck. This however is irrelevant when you look at where the individual's true intentions lie. Basically, luck plays its part in situations, but it's more important where your intention lies in the grand scheme of things.