 One response to the problem of luck rejects the claim that there is nothing about the agent prior to the decision that accounts for the difference between her making one decision and her making the other. After all, the agent acted for reasons (e.g., a desire for money). If those reasons raised the probability of deciding to steal and non-deterministically caused the decision, that is enough to account for the decision (in a sense that makes it not just a matter of luck). In the world where she decides not to steal, the reasons that increase the probability of that choice (e.g., a desire to act rightly) would then account for the alternative decision. No matter what the agent chooses, we can give a contrastive explanation of her action (this means we can explain why she chose that act rather than the alternative.) Franklin (2018) develops (more complex) replies along these lines.