How Luck Changes the Way We View the World

by Daniel Breyer

“You've got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?” Most of us are familiar with this famous line from the movie Dirty Harry. But perhaps the more important “one question” you should be asking yourself is: “What does lucky even mean?”

If you believe in luck — or if you absolutely do not believe in luck, join Associate Professor of Philosophy Daniel Breyer as he makes the case for the essential role that luck plays in our lives — and has played throughout human history. In this 10-part overview, he will give you a completely new appreciation for the surprising interplay between luck, responsibility, and free will.

Using the lens of real-life stories, as well as sharing a plethora of views on the subject from philosophers, writers, and leaders, Dr. Breyer demonstrates how luck affects our views of happiness, success, justice, and knowledge. Armed with the teachings of Aristotle, Richard Wiseman, Neil Levy, and others, Breyer presents the pros and cons of arguments that aim to show that luck undermines free will and renders moral responsibility impossible. You’ll consider fascinating cases of so-called moral luck that just might convince you to reconsider your most basic moral judgments. And you’ll even explore the science of luck (yes, there is such a thing), as well as epistemic luck — a kind of luck that threatens to undermine knowledge itself.

Perhaps most lucky of all, he’ll reveal practical tips for how to make your own luck, no matter what your fortunes bring.

Genres: Nonfiction, Audiobook, Philosophy

180 pages, Audible Audio

Published December 7, 2021

Reviews

[Toni · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ummm, interesting and very scientific. By the end of the course, I was surprised that the author was actually a fan of luck.

Much to think about...be prepared to have an open mind and time to ponder.

[Amy]

I quit listening after lecture two due to issues with the framing of supposed "moral luck."

People aren't moral or immoral because lucky or unlucky things happen or may not happen as a result of their choices, people are judged as moral or immoral based on how much damage their behavior does or can do to others. In the lecturer's own example - where he almost shot his father as a child because he was being careless with a firearm - I would say that is immoral regardless of the fact no one died. That is a kind of immorality I would hope is borne of inexperience rather than malice or lack of care - something one would grow out of - and thus I would try not to judge too harshly, but the judgement wouldn't change regardless of whether or not someone had been shot.

In a similar vein, when the author discusses sociopathy, he says (to paraphrase) that 'people are judged unfairly because of their genes' when that is not the case at all; people are judged fairly based on the severely negative impacts their behavior has on their victims. The same applies to the examples of the drunk drivers (both of whom fell asleep at the wheel and rolled on the sidewalk; one into a pedestrian who died, and the other who did only property damage) and attempted murderers (both of whom attempted to murder a domestic partner, one of which was successful in the murder and the other who was not). Where these drivers might be judged differently is a result of one being better able to cover up their moral failing (as a death would be widely reported/discussed, and thus much more difficult to hide) rather than the community thinking that drunk driving is fine as long as it only results in property damage. Ditto for the abusers: no one I know would go 'Oh, Joe only tried to beat his wife to death with a hammer; she lived, so it's alright,' and if the author is around a lot of people who would make that argument, he needs to re-evaluate the kind of company he keeps.

I had zero interest in wasting my time with hours of the remaining lecture if this was any indication, so I DNFed and wrote down my thoughts so I'd know not to interact with anything from this lecturer again.

- February 2025

[Carlos · Rating 1 out of 5]

This feels like someone trying to show how fun philosophy can be by discussing a fun topic, only for it to show how philosophy can suck the joy out of anything. Breyer seems intent on proving the stereotype of philosophers arguing over splitting hairs and manages to push away anyone not already enthralled by the “fun” of dissecting terminology for hours on end. It was particularly regrettable considering how promising the start was, making the book seemingly open to curious readers, only for it to devolve into further and further subsets of “luck” to parse, leaving an exhausted reader at the end wondering if any progress, other than coining terminology, had been achieved.

[Gregg · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m not sure what I was looking for from this book but I do know I didn’t find it. This became a philosophical approach to the topic of luck. I have a deeper understanding of a host of related concepts (e.g. coincidence, chance, causality); however, unlike classic philosophy, I don’t feel that I have a whole new way of thinking or a different perspective. I can simply be an annoying guy at a party insisting that an outcome was the result of a coincidence not luck because I have a better understanding of those concepts than the other attendees. I suspect nobody would like that guy.

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 2 out of 5]

If I was a philosophy major I would love this book. But I'm not. This book is filled with jargon made for philosophy students. It is not for the layperson. Frankly, despite the cheery nature of the narrator's voice, even the narrator seemed tired of the tedious nature of the arguments being made. I could hear a sigh in his voice. It was slight and subtle but it was there.

I doubt I will listen to this audiobook again unless I need to write a paper for a philosophy class.

[Jann · Rating 4 out of 5]

The lectures were well written and managed to keep my interest. An exception for me in philosophy books. I am still thinking about what luck is (and isn’t), and how it affects moral responsibility, free will and our general attitudes about our own life’s experiences. Has luck, indeed “swallowed everything”? I’m not entirely sure how it all matters to me in the long run, but I’m enjoying thinking about it. And I do think of myself as a lucky person (in spite of a lot of unlucky circumstances).

[Laura May]

I for reals did not pay enough attention to this audiobook. It was a philosophy/moral philosophy book on luck and what that means; and I enjoyed it without trying to internalise it. But I think that's probably allowed.

Included in Audible Plus.

[Nicole]

DNF after first two lectures.

[Alexis Petty · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Arne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Goodness gracious.

So here's a test; which one of these terms are actual terms from the book?
- Epistemological luck
- Stochastic luck
- Multivalent luck
- Moral luck
- Rhetorical luck
- Luck McLuckyface

Yup, that about sums it up.

There are moments when you're following the thought experiment only for it to take a sharp left turn and leave you wondering how the actual f*ck a drunk driver is not guilty, just unlucky and even just as guilty as someone who drove home drunk but didn't kill anyone...

It feels a little like I've been catfished because the description starts with a Dirty Harry quote and ends with a "make your own luck" bit. Neither of those two things happen here, lots of hair splitting and navel gazing.

My father in law was an academic and he used to teasingly say: "The fights in academia are so vicious because the stakes are so low" lol. All the minutiae and detail is very impressive and someone obviously did some really hard thinking to come up with all the examples and counter examples but after a chapter there's a moment where I stood back and thought "So what?"

Wouldn't recommend

[Logan Horsford · Rating 1 out of 5]

OMG he made luck boring.

[Erica Amad]

I'm the luckiest girl in the world!!!!

[C · Rating 1 out of 5]

After listening to other Audible/Great Courses, I though this would be inclined towards self-help: like how to change your mindset or self-sabotaging because you don't feel "lucky". Nope. The lectures were on semantics, then on philosophy, and then I stopped listening......