My dear law students, I know that the events in Brisbane are at the top of your minds, so I will jump on the bandwagon and talk about one aspect of this wonderful test series that appealed to me. Right through the series, we have seen the role of fortune in a player’s success.

Rishabh Pant escaped a stumping before he went on to win the game for India in Brisbane. In Melbourne, Ajinkya Rahane was dropped before he went on to make a hundred. But is it not the case that we give these players credit for their achievements despite their fortune?
We also hold these players responsible even if what happened was their misfortune. India’s 36 in Adelaide was a collective failure no doubt but it was also a perfect cocktail of bad luck-pitch, conditions, and all the Australian bowlers managing to get their line & length right.
That’s test cricket, but we might say that’s life in general. Luck, good and bad, plays an important role in how the world judges us. We might go further and say that the law reflects life in this respect.
When I look at the way the law apportions responsibility, I am amazed that there is widespread acceptance of the system. Take the law of negligence that all of you study in the first year. The law of negligence establishes an objective standard of care.
The standard of care is that which is required of a hypothetical reasonable person in the circumstances of the alleged offender. So, if a person is actually ignorant, clumsy, lazy etc, he will still be subject to the objective standard of care expected of a reasonable person.
In a remarkable set of articles, Oxford’s Tony Honoré has analysed the moral issues that arise from the application of the standard of care in negligence law. I will try to summarise his ideas in this thread and also raise some questions.
Honoré begins by noticing the following point: People generally believe that a person who is negligent is someone who is at fault.
Traditionally, fault is ascribed to a person only when a person could have controlled the situation in which he found himself, and had the opportunity to act otherwise, but didn’t.
Applying this test to the law of negligence, a person would be guilty of negligence only if he could have met the applicable standard of care. This means an incompetent, clumsy, impatient or lazy person ought not to be held guilty of negligence.
However, this is clearly not true because of the application of the hypothetical model person test in the law of negligence. How do we then justify the law of negligence? Honoré has argued that we live in a system in which we allocate responsibility...
according to the outcomes of our actions, not moral qualities or circumstances. Is outcome responsibility fair? Honore provides two different justifications for outcome responsibility, neither of which is uncontroversial.
Honore argues that since we take credit for favourable outcomes (like the examples I gave in the beginning), we must accept responsibility for unfavourable outcomes as well. He believes that generally people benefit from a system that is essentially based on luck.
Ask yourselves if you are convinced by this argument. Some people appear to have more luck than others. If luck allocation among the population is not uniform, then why must we accept a system where the unluckier ones are punished more often?
Honore has another, more abstract justification for outcome responsibility. He believes that outcome responsibility is crucial to our identity as persons.
To quote Honoré, if actions and outcomes were not ascribed to us on the basis of our ‘bodily movements and their mental accompaniments’, we would have no ‘continuing history or character’.
Outcome responsibility makes us have an identity-we are what we are because we are responsible for our outcomes, good and bad.
How do you respond to Honoré? Is the idea of responsibility or accountability vital to our identities? Is the connection between identity and responsibility intuitively obvious?
I agree with Honore that it is a myth that, in law, fault is essential to responsibility. Fault can enhance the punishment for one’s actions, but legal responsibility depends on the outcomes of one’s actions, not one’s mental make up.
When you review Donoghue v Stevenson, go past the negligence issue and neighbourhood principle and ask yourself this question: what if the snail got into the bottle because the manufacturer’s employee was a clumsy sort?
Would it have made any difference to the finding on negligence? If not, negligence liability is as beset by bad luck as some of our unfortunate cricketers.
Ask yourself whether you are ready to accept a legal system that apportions responsibilities on the basis of outcomes, even if these outcomes are just plain bad luck.
Search for the philosophical foundations of the cases you study, even the ones that you think have bee n done to death. You might be surprised at what you find.

More from Society

Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+

It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+

My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.

But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+

Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+

You May Also Like

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?
1/ Some initial thoughts on personal moats:

Like company moats, your personal moat should be a competitive advantage that is not only durable—it should also compound over time.

Characteristics of a personal moat below:


2/ Like a company moat, you want to build career capital while you sleep.

As Andrew Chen noted:


3/ You don’t want to build a competitive advantage that is fleeting or that will get commoditized

Things that might get commoditized over time (some longer than


4/ Before the arrival of recorded music, what used to be scarce was the actual music itself — required an in-person artist.

After recorded music, the music itself became abundant and what became scarce was curation, distribution, and self space.

5/ Similarly, in careers, what used to be (more) scarce were things like ideas, money, and exclusive relationships.

In the internet economy, what has become scarce are things like specific knowledge, rare & valuable skills, and great reputations.
MASTER THREAD on Short Strangles.

Curated the best tweets from the best traders who are exceptional at managing strangles.

• Positional Strangles
• Intraday Strangles
• Position Sizing
• How to do Adjustments
• Plenty of Examples
• When to avoid
• Exit Criteria

How to sell Strangles in weekly expiry as explained by boss himself. @Mitesh_Engr

• When to sell
• How to do Adjustments
• Exit


Beautiful explanation on positional option selling by @Mitesh_Engr
Sir on how to sell low premium strangles yourself without paying anyone. This is a free mini course in


1st Live example of managing a strangle by Mitesh Sir. @Mitesh_Engr

• Sold Strangles 20% cap used
• Added 20% cap more when in profit
• Booked profitable leg and rolled up
• Kept rolling up profitable leg
• Booked loss in calls
• Sold only


2nd example by @Mitesh_Engr Sir on converting a directional trade into strangles. Option Sellers can use this for consistent profit.

• Identified a reversal and sold puts

• Puts decayed a lot

• When achieved 2% profit through puts then sold
The chorus of this song uses the shlokas taken from Sundarkand of Ramayana.

It is a series of Sanskrit shlokas recited by Jambavant to Hanuman to remind Him of his true potential.

1. धीवर प्रसार शौर्य भरा: The brave persevering one, your bravery is taking you forward.


2. उतसारा स्थिरा घम्भीरा: The one who is leaping higher and higher, who is firm and stable and seriously determined.

3. ुग्रामा असामा शौर्या भावा: He is strong, and without an equal in the ability/mentality to fight

4. रौद्रमा नवा भीतिर्मा: His anger will cause new fears in his foes.

5.विजिटरीपुरु धीरधारा, कलोथरा शिखरा कठोरा: This is a complex expression seen only in Indic language poetry. The poet is stating that Shivudu is experiencing the intensity of climbing a tough peak, and likening

it to the feeling in a hard battle, when you see your enemy defeated, and blood flowing like a rivulet. This is classical Veera rasa.

6.कुलकु थारथिलीथा गम्भीरा, जाया विराट वीरा: His rough body itself is like a sharp weapon (because he is determined to win). Hail this complete

hero of the world.

7.विलयगागनथाला भिकारा, गरज्जद्धरा गारा: The hero is destructive in the air/sky as well (because he can leap at an enemy from a great height). He can defeat the enemy (simply) with his fearsome roar of war.