The case of moral luck was introduced by Williams Bernard and developed respectively by Thomas Nagel in their articles. Both raised the question of whether luck can influence moral judgment. In this essay, Williams and Nagel's definition of moral luck and four types of moral luck will be discussed through several case examples, then followed by some arguments from Judith Andre, Donna Dickenson, and David Enoch and Andrei Marmor who disagree with the concept of moral luck. Let's take a simple example from Nagel's article to gain a brief understanding of the idea of ​​moral luck. Drivers A and B were both drunk on the way home. Driver A ran a red light and killed a child who was crossing the street while Driver B returned home safely. For Williams and Nagel, driver A should, of course, be liable for manslaughter under the laws, but he should also be treated morally the same as driver B since the difference in outcomes is based solely on luck. As Williams argues “luck of this kind affects whether he will be justified or not, for if he strikes, he will not be justified” (Williams, p.25). Therefore, in his book “Moral Luck”, Williams introduced a new term “moral luck” referring to “the luck that occurs when an agent can correctly be treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what is being valued because it depends on factors outside his control” (Nelkin). Nagel agrees with Williams' idea and classifies “moral luck” into four different types. They are constitutive, circumstantial, resultant and causal luck. Constituent luck refers to “the kind of person you are, where it is not just a matter of what you do deliberately, but of your inclination, ability, and temperament.” In another…half of the paper…the intention is, or how certain we are about it,” (Enoch and Marmor, p. 422). Williams and Nagel's concept of moral luck is met with more disagreement than agreement since moral luck is not universally applicable in every situation. The existence of the reason or agent of regret will, in some cases, be an enigma since they are private matters and unknown to the rest of us. Therefore, the case of moral luck remained unsolved due to its inconsistency. On the other hand, if the motives and intentions (of being moral) are not counted and/or the agent's remorse exists, it will be unfair to the person treated wrongly since the outcome is actually out of his or her control. Therefore, moral luck is a sensitive issue and should be applied on a case-by-case basis based on the facts presented. There is no universal formula for determining the relevance of moral luck in every situation.