Abstract

In recent debates about the nature of luck, many philosophers defend a modal condition, according to which an event E is lucky for S only if E is modally fragile. However, there are two competing accounts of how this condition should be filled out: (1) proportion accounts focus on whether E fails to occur in a suitable proportion of possible worlds, whereas (2) proximity accounts focus on whether E fails to occur in a suitably proximate possible world. In this article I argue against proportion accounts and in favor of proximity accounts.