Shakespeare, Montaigne and Moral Luck

Abstract

The term ‘moral luck’ refers to the ‘problematic or paradoxical fact that factors decisive for the moral standing of an agent are factors subject to luck’ (Walker). This chapter argues that Montaigne and Shakespeare disagree not only on the reality of moral luck but also on the dangers it might pose. Montaigne rejects moral luck insofar as he adopts a Stoic ethos, which identifies the autonomous will as the ground of moral judgment and the basis of excellence – excellence that could be compromised if moral luck were real. The Christian ethos dramatized by Shakespeare insists that the will is not autonomous, and locates the highest value, not in one’s own excellence, but in relationships with others. When those relationships are compromised by sin, full reconciliation often requires moral luck. For Montaigne, the greatest threat would be to suffer bad moral luck; for Shakespeare, it would be to miss out on good moral luck.