Environment as Luck
Buckminster Fuller noticed that it doesn't work to try and change people by putting restrictions on them. Instead, if you provide them with options — better options with regards to what can be done — then they are likely to choose the best option.
It is quite drastic from the default of good, bad, wrong, right, moral, immoral. What I mean is that we might always make the most rational choices as the human-animal mechanisms we are. Hitler probably was doing something which made most sense to him, even if that doesn't make sense to us. Terrorists probably function the same way. It seems that it isn't that some of us are good and some bad, some moral and others immoral — it seems that it is just a matter of not knowing what is possible.
This gap. Between what we say is good or moral, and all the things which aren't that — that gap might just be unawareness rather than ill-intent. It seems that before we realize this gap exists, it is already too big. Too big for us to abandon the process of playing the game of blame and shame, and realize the deeper infrastructure at work.
The logic is quite interesting. While I'm myself, I very much am like all the people I am unfamiliar with — at least in terms of being able to rely on knowing what they may do or want or feel in the future. 'Luck' might be the environment we get influenced by, which we didn't have a hand in designing. Which, if true, means that what we do today determines the luck humanity's children are born with.