That seems likely for most. But on the bright side you have come to a conclusion. Could be a sign that it is not so severe after all.

I was wondering about moral luck. As I fathom moral luck is a moral descriptor of either a Person's willingness to do something that has an unintended outcome (e.g. someone shoots into a crowd (morally wrong) and unintentionally hits an mass murderer hiding inside(arguably a morally good)) or an outcome that happens independently of any willing participants (e.g. economic growth trickle down (if it exists) actually I still find that particular example lacking, regardless- ).

What confuses me is the possibility of the negative version of those. By negative i mean can I declare a non-action (not simply abstaining from acting) a moral wrong/good?

A rather complicated example goes as follows (i appreciate if there would be a simpler less shitty one, but as of right now I cannot think of any): X has child Y. Y likes Ice cream. To give Y ice cream would brighten Ys mood, thus would be good. X is on the way home. Y is already home. Y spots an ice cream truck in front of the building. Unfortunately the truck leaves soon after. X did not spot the ice cream truck, therefore lacked the incentive to increase Ys mood by purchase of Ice cream. As X comes home Y states "It is bad that you did not bring me ice cream!"

I know it seems rather childish, but what do you think is it possible to blame for non-action?