The difference between ethics and law in response to consequential luck

The criminal field in Law study has long been open to many ethical debates. The emerging issue of moral luck quickly reflected itself in criminal law conversations. This article has discussed one of the types of moral luck, that is, consequential luck, in the discussion between the moral philosophy and criminal law. Consequential moral luck means that the result of the perpetrator's behaviour is effective on his moral evaluation. Consequence criminal luck is also defined as the result of the perpetrator's behaviour is effective on his criminal fate. In this article, after precise conceptual demarcation, an attempt has been made to correctly determine the center of ambiguity and to process the question of the topic of discussion carefully. The present article shows that there is no consequential moral luck, unlike consequential criminal luck. In ethics, blameworthiness is the ultimate point. In criminal law, blameworthiness is the beginning; It is a necessary but insufficient condition. This important feature, along with other rules such as expressiveness of punishment and minimality of criminal law, distinguishes the path of criminal law from moral discussions in the issue of consequential luck.