Abstract

Asymmetric moral luck is the position of denying some types of moral luck, typically resultant moral luck, while accepting others. Robert Hartman’s Parallelism argument is meant to reject asymmetric moral luck and show that if circumstantial moral luck exists then we have good analogical evidence for the existence of resultant moral luck. Eduardo Rivera-López and Anna Nyman object against this argument. Rivera-López takes issue with the rejection of asymmetric moral luck in general while Nyman focuses on the parallelism argument in particular. In this paper, i will argue that while Nyman manages to show that the paralellism argument fails to give analogical evidence for resultant moral luck, both asymmetric moral luck and its rejection are still viable options owing to the fact that both positions appeal to fundamental intuitions. As such, substantive progress is hard to make out.