As we all know Aristotle is the founder of western science and has his own theory about moral luck. Epictetus, on the other hand, has his own theory about the topic as well. Moral luck is considered to be when a person takes full praise or blame for an outcome of a situation, even when the person did not have full control over the action or the consequence in the first place. While having an open mind to both sides of the debate, let's compare Aristotle and Epictetus’ viewpoints on the issue. Although they share some similarities in their findings, the difference between Aristotle and Epictetus is clear. Beginning with the similarity between the two philosophers is easy. They both believe in the idea of luck. They believe that we as people, all have luck. The way they go about describing what luck is to them individually is where we see the difference in the two sides. Epictetus describes luck as being things that are not up to us. Aristotle …show more content…
Such as the weather outside, that's not up to us, but what we wear depending on the weather forecast is. If you act by this handbook he thinks that luck will not impact your life. Epictetus’ studies were based primarily on disastrous situations. Some of the main arguments of Epictetus came from studying such unexpected and horrid situations. First, what we already went over, we cannot change things that are not up to us, all we can do is not think about it and let it be. Second, anything is possible so we have to be prepared for any situation. Third, he then says that we are actors in a play and we should play the fool in this play. We do not get to choose our roles, just like in life, however, we get to choose how we play it. Thereby meaning we are responsible for actions. If we do something, we are to be blamed or praised for