There was an article recently in the increasingly woke but still useful New Scientist which attempted to gauge the degree to which luck was responsible for who we are and, hence, an individual’s life circumstances. I think it came in third place after genes and the environment – which are also both down to luck, really, I suppose. The thesis seemed to be we pay too little attention to the role of luck when considering why one man is a millionaire and the other is a lavatory attendant or a book reviewer.
I would beg to differ. Ascribing luck to one’s unfortunate position in life is very prevalent indeed and is as left-wing an argument as blaming the class system or the colour of one’s skin (although with slightly less justification). Anything which devolves responsibility from the individual to something else – especially, perhaps, blind fate – is necessarily a left-wing argument, as it eschews any notion of bad life choices, a lack of diligence, inherent stupidity, wickedness, idleness, failed education, torpor, a dearth of imagination and so on. Blaming fate is a convenient way of exculpating oneself. Of course luck can play a part in the eventual destination of a human being, but it is only part – a small part – of the story, I think.
I mention this because we have been hearing a lot about luck just recently. To hear the complaints from the left – and especially the third-sector left – about Kwasi Kwarteng’s interesting mini-Budget, you would assume that life really is simply a lottery and hard work or intelligence or both play no part whatsoever in where people end up. It is necessary to cleave to this patent falsehood if you are going to attack the morality, or the lack of it, behind Mr Kwarteng’s Budget.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in