عنوان مقاله [English]
Libertarians believe that it is only in an indeterministic world that human beings have the free will. But the uncertainty of the world leads to chance, to the randomness of its affairs and to the denial of free will. Therefore, the Luck Argument is the most important problem of the libertarians. Their responses to the explanatory formulation of this argument can be divided into three categories. The first group confesses that the argument is question-begging. They see contrastive explanations is available only for determined choices, and demand of them for indeterministic situations are circular and irrational. The latter believe that although we have no contrastive explanations for undetermined choices, the freedom of the agent in such choices can be explained by non-contrastive explanations. The third category, by providing examples, attempts to provide a contrastive explanation for some undetermined choices. In this article, after an introduction to what is the Luck Argument, the types of its formulation and the libertarian responses to explanatory formulation have been explained. Finally, we conclude that they have not been able to respond to the Luck Argument and that objection still remains an unsolved challenge for libertarians.