Nagel believes that the difficult choices we make and the outcome of those decisions cannot be predicted. It is possible to carry out a preventive evaluation of the choice; however, we will have to wait for another evaluation of the choice for the outcome, because the outcome determines what has been done. I believe Nagel is right about evaluating choices with outcome because you may make a choice before the action occurs versus when an unexpected action occurs for which you have to choose another choice that determines the outcome of your choice. In Moral Luck, Nagel believes that certain actions are unjustifiably bad in themselves or risky and that the results of the action do not make them right. When the outcome plays a role in moral judgment, then it can be objective and timeless. Kant insisted on the irrelevance of personality traits in the control of the will. If Kant believed this, it would exclude moral judgments about virtues and vices. I don't agree with Kant, I believe that when it comes to good will the result and action are influenced by the personality and the characteristics in which the will could be formulated