——我将称之为斯特劳曼逻辑谬误:医生的反应是基于感知到的常态，不公正地补充了论点的完整性。
-- The inclusion of "luck" into the argument is risky. It's quite vulgar in the post-modern age to lay causality at the feet of Fortuna. Luck is a vulgar imposition of order that distorts anything nearing truthful causality.
——我将把提供的子弹称为“错误困境”;您没有根据您所提供的选项提供最完整的选项集;我并不是要求实现每一种可能，只是要求“做不同”和“不不同”以更符合逻辑的形式被更整齐地划分。
.
Ultimately the idea is great but not proven here: you cannot reasonably compare 1.) the causality leading up to the morality surrounding the prosecution of a doctor regarding negligence in surgery resulting in death to 2.) the inverted causality of winning the lottery. 1 and 2 are apples and oranges.

我想运气和道德之间可能有某种联系，然而，我还不能评估到底是什么联系。这可能大致符合上述评论由Mello Jello。例如，如果道德具有一些普遍的参数，那么它似乎就不依赖于掷骰子、轮盘赌的旋转或抽牌。当然，有一些概率论理论家可能会在一个或另一个层面上对此提出异议。人们一直在以各种方式争论进化论已被证实的事实，就像他们争论科学与宗教。总会有不同意见。这就是现实。和意识。

我想我只是看不出运气和环境之间的关系。我认为，运气是不可控的，而环境在某种程度上取决于我们的选择。如果我选择追逐并攻击一个因为我在交通中没有让开而向我敬礼的人，我就根据环境制造了一个问题。最终发生的事情只取决于运气，因为我或他可能会遭受痛苦或死亡，因为我基于环境的选择。如果没有记错的话，过失杀人和谋杀是法律上的区别，通常是由接受司法建议的陪审团来决定的。这样的结果是根据特定的法律规则产生的，还有辩诉交易——尽管是真理和正义。柏拉图等人在他们的时代是伟大的。现在，也许不是这么回事。哲学家们小心!

I would choose option three from a pure practical standpoint. It makes sense that not everyone can win the lottery -- nobody would play if it was so. Regarding the doctors' illustration, there would be no way to figure out who performed malpractice. Moreover, if that was a viable option, like you stated, there would be little disincentive to perform malpractice.
From a philosophical standpoint I would also choose option three. Every lottery player knows what they are getting into when they buy a ticket -- they have a small chance of winning. They also know the next person in line has the same chance of winning. That means there is nothing unfair about either situation; each participant in your illustrations has the same chance of the said result.

You're absolutely right. I honestly felt overwhelmed by the argument and I wasn't sure if I should have even replied to it. But I did and it's blatantly obvious that I attacked the knot without the slightest idea of how to untie it. Next time I find myself in this position I will simply ask questions. I'm finding that sophistry is such an easy trap to fall into for beginners but I'm trying my hardest to be at least Socratic. The constructive criticism is much appreciated.

"Moral"; to defer to religious teachings...What are the creator's view of Moral Luck?
If someone accidently causes the death of another, the action was not intended to kill, but the consequence killed, the actor could flee to a city of refuge to escape judgment and punishment; therefore, intention matters. (Old Testement). If the lack of moral intention exists within a person which has them desire and intend to kill or commit other moral faults, they are as guilty as someone who has acted upon them... whether they acted or not; the character and intention matters.(New Testement- sermon on the mount, regarding adultery, lusting after a woman COMMITS adultery already within his heart).
Intention matters more than outcome.

我不相信运气和环境是一样的。我对这种信仰并不感到“惊讶”，就像我不相信运气和道德之间的“任何”关系一样。正如我所坚持的，运气是不可预测的。这就是为什么我不玩彩票和老虎机的原因。环境至少在某种程度上是在我们的控制范围内的:不要在晚上穿着黑色衣服在街上散步或慢跑，同时用随身听听你最喜欢的《黑色安息日》(black Sabbath)的歌——或任何你可能已经获得的分散注意力的设备。希望这些插图能澄清我的信念——尽管我对此表示怀疑。在我所在的州和城市，慢跑者、步行者和骑自行车的人经常死亡，因为他们不相信他们应该自己照顾自己。这是一种遗憾，但它由于不负责任，或:情况;……不是运气。为什么人们很难理解呢? I AM surprised by stupidity---and baffled, in this age of reason and enlightenment. Or, it is?...hmmmmm.

There are at least 3 different threads here: 1. moral, 2. psychological , 3. legal. Only the first is really the purview of philosophy. My take, which I think is common, is that luck should not affect morality but does in fact affect psychology. Assuming the latter is widely held, the legal realm should follow the psychological one or the laws will not be supported.

Let's start over and try to simplify this apparently complex discussion. Firstly, might we define morality? Oh, no! This won't do will it? Because morality appears to be CULTURALLY connected---examples include the manner in which negroes were treated in early America, and the manner in which women are treated in India today. But wait. Moral issues depend on where one lives? Yes! Surprise! Morality IS a function of culture, practice and tradition. Ergo, if we aspire to change morality, we must, therefore,aspire to alter the culture(s) that offend our notions of what is properly moral. This has not worked much in my short lifetime. Nor did it work in the short lifetimes of my parents. Say What You Know. Share What You Have. Do What You Can...Notice, then, I have dwelled on morality, diverse though it may be. Morality is a function of cultural intractibility. It is where we are more than who we BELIEVE ourselves to be. How quaint.
现在，祝你好运:蛇眼，你输了;箱卡,你输了;玩彩票吗?——骰子游戏的赔率更好，短期内——但是，赌博没有道德可言。你可以去银行证明这一点。哈,哈。
If any of the above reminds you of history, it should. You have lived it; if you noticed. As to the gambling observations, those are merely peripheral facts. Good night.
Harold.
(I'll consult with anyone on matters of cultural intractibility and Historionic Effect, but my time is valuable, therefore(or ergo), expensive.)

这是另一个视角。公平是一种强大的人类直觉，有助于促进社会合作，但有时感觉不合适。一名医生在实施麻醉前不检查是否患有糖尿病，这不仅会危及病人的生命，还会危及他的工作。这是预付款协议，每个人都明白。如果他走了捷径并侥幸逃脱，那他就是幸运的，不会受到任何惩罚。如果病人癫痫发作而死亡，医生就有两方面的不幸，并承担后果。在股市上输掉10万美元可能会让一个人失去他的房子，而另一个人只能推迟购买他的新帆船。2022世界杯小组赛分组潜在损失的后果必须被考虑到做出游戏的决定中，这样就不会出现不公平的结果。
Hugh

Well-stated, Hugh---well-stated. I live as practically as possible. Sounds like you do too.
Newman.

"What one deserves should depend on one?s own intentions, desires, motivations and things like that; it shouldn?t be a matter of...x."
What one deserves, in terms of reward and burden, very much partly depends on the effects which one's actions have on others of equally well-intentioned moral standing. If my physiology needs the thermostat turned up and yours needs it turned down, we each could be wrong upon the other in our own good intention to 'make the world the right temperature'.