I know this is three days later but I just saw your comment and wanted to leave a reply (though it may never be seen.) >Essentially, I'm asking you to consider

I know this is three days later but I just saw your comment and wanted to leave a reply (though it may never be seen.) >Essentially, I'm asking you to consider these two farmers "in a vacuum" such that their wealth is due entirely to their own actions and not to any outside forces. Absolutely nothing left to chance, or "luck." By my definition of the word at least. I don't think it's enough to refute this by simply saying that 'people don't live in a vacuum' as others might. I think it's actually impossible to conceive of a person 'in a vacuum.' I reject this sort of individualistic view of a person in favor of a more communitarian view - which is to say a person is made up of their social attachments and environment as much as those social attachments and environments are made up of individuals. It's impossible to conceive of a person in a vacuum for the same reason it's impossible to conceive of a cat that's a dog. A 'person in a vacuum' just isn't a person. >They are twin brothers and received the same upbringing. One of the farmers tends his lands diligently while the other is concerned with other aspects of life and only does the bare minimum to survive. As you might expect, over time the first farmer prospers due to the hard work he has put in to cultivate his lands while the second farmer stagnates because he has prioritized other matters. They both understood the benefits of tending to land diligently from their shared upbringing, but they made different decisions for whatever reason. You seem to posit that they are exactly the same in upbringing and everything but then behave differently. What do you believe is the source of this differing behavior? If we traced it back far enough would we eventually reach a point where it becomes apparent that this difference originated in 'a thing' which the farmers had no control over? I believe so.