The case of moral luck was introduced by Williams Bernard and developed by Thomas Nagel in their articles respectively. Both raised the question of whether luck can influence moral judgment. In this essay, the definition of moral luck and the four types of moral luck by Williams and Nagel will be discussed through several case examples, then followed by some arguments from Judith Andre, Donna Dickenson and David Enoch and Andrei Marmor which are not disagree with the concept. of moral luck.Let's take a simple example from Nagel's article to gain a brief understanding of the idea of ​​moral luck. Drivers A and B were both drunk on their way home. Driver A ran a red light and killed a child passing in the street while Driver B returned home unharmed. For Williams and Nagel, Driver A should of course be liable for manslaughter under the laws, but should also be treated morally the same as Driver B since the differences in outcomes are purely based on luck. As Williams argues, “luck of this kind affects whether he will be justified or not, since if it strikes, he will not be justified” (Williams, p. 25). Therefore, in his book "Moral Luck", Williams introduced a new term "moral luck" referring to "the luck that occurs when an agent can be properly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that an agent significant aspect of what he is evaluated "because it depends on factors beyond his control" (Nelkin). Nagel agrees with Williams' idea and classifies "moral luck" into four different types. These are constitutive, circumstantial, resultant and causal luck. Constitutive luck refers to “the kind of person you are, where it is not just a matter of what you do deliberately, but of your inclination, your abilities, and your temperament.” In another... middle of paper...... the intention is, or the certainty we feel of it” (Enoch and Marmor, p. 422). Williams and Nagel's concept of moral luck is more common. disagree than agree since moral luck is not universally applicable in all situations. The existence of a motive or agent-regret will, in some cases, be an enigma because it is a private matter and unknown to the rest of us. Therefore, the case of moral luck remains unresolved so far due to its inconsistency. On the other hand, if (moral) motivations and intentions are not taken into account and/or agent regret exists, this will be unfair to the person who is treated poorly since the outcome is actually out of of his control. Thus, moral luck is a sensitive issue and must be applied on a case-by-case basis based on the facts presented. There is no universal formula for the relevance of moral luck in every situation..