Abstract

Whims are philosophically interesting and play a role in debates concerning free will, luck, and responsibility. However, philosophers have had little to say about what whims are. One exception is Lackey (Australas J Philos 86(2): 255–267, 2008) who argues that some whimsical events are counterexamples to the modal account of luck and that whimsical decisions can be modally robust. I argue that these claims are false. I also give an account of whims. In my view, whimsical decisions are definable in terms of two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: spontaneity and modal fragility. Whimsical outcomes are the successful results of whimsical decisions.