Factual Ignorance and Moral Excuse

Factual Ignorance and Moral Excuse

            Ignorance is bliss. It is quite common to find several folks abiding by this maxim. Any action conducted by one out of an ignorant act often leads to a liability in any damage or injury that results from it, by the oblivious individual. Habitual implications indicate that some types of liability that result from ignorance do not always lead to responsibility by the blamed individual;  factual oblivion could also be a factor. Several people conduct the practice of factual and moral ignorance. They mostly use it as an argument to defend themselves from an accusation they face. Additionally, they may also use it as an excuse to be recused from any adverse reaction that comes out of their action. As I write this essay, I will focus my discussion on the question asked by many; can factual ignorance be used as a moral excuse?

In society, there exist two main forms of judgment; one from the set and accepted societal morals, and the other from the laws established by the governments. Moral and factual ignorance is mostly used in defense from societal judgment, as breakage of the law leads to consequences that are already in writing. If Susie spoons cyanide into Jane’s coffee but thinks she is pouring sugar and Jane ends up getting poisoned, is she liable for her actions? Could she use factual ignorance as a moral excuse? Yes, she could. Jane may have failed in labeling her containers effectively, leading to Susan’s mistake. Susan was unquestionably acting in Jane’s best interest and had no intention of hurting Jane. In a court of law, Susan may be charged with manslaughter, but in a societal scenario, she could use factual ignorance as a moral excuse for her actions. However, if Susan did see the container labeled ‘cyanide’ and went ahead to pour it into Jane’s coffee, then it would be inexcusable to claim that factual ignorance led her to discharge the substance into Jane’s coffee.

However, in the case that Jane passed away, is her family supposed to accept that Susan acted out of factual ignorance?  Only they could make that decision.

Ordinary morality recognizes an extensive list of excuses (Rosen, 2020). Such may include insanity, coercion, necessity, infancy, duress, etc. For instance, if a mentally unstable person stabbed a random person on the street, it would be excusable. Their unstable mind undoubtedly led to their moral ignorance, thus resulting in their actions. In such a case, ethical ignorance could work as a moral excuse. Subsequently, if one may assess one of these excuses, coercion, it may add a level of support to support moral ignorance as a claim. For instance, if a squad of delinquents roughed up a student and forced them to take up some illegal drugs, threatening them with dire consequences if they failed to engage in the act and the said student was caught among these individuals by an authoritative figure, they could claim coercion to cater for their release. Most people regularly dispute the applicability of these excuses in every situation, but further reflection reveals that they are, in fact, applicable in almost every case (Rosen, 2020).

One of the reasons moral ignorance is disputed by many as an excuse is the existence of choice. One will claim ‘they had no choice’ or ‘they could not help it.’ Critics dispose of such arguments and argue that everyone has a certain degree of choice in their matters. Nevertheless, take the case of Peter, a banker. Peter wakes up every morning to go to work at his local financial institution and is liked by most, if not all, people. He is responsible for the keys to the safe. One afternoon heavily armed robbers storm into the bank with the knowledge that Peter possesses these keys, thus to force his hand, they make him choose between opening the safe and shooting one customer in the banking hall. He selects to open the safe. Would Peter be liable for the loss of the banking funds? Logically, he is, but he could claim coercion by the robbers, which resulted in his action. He had no choice in the matter since his life depended on it, further proving critics wrong. A moral ignorance in Peter’s case applies as a form of excuse.

It may seem like an excuse may be the way out of a difficult situation, but when exactly does factual ignorance work as a moral excuse? Suppose one swung a whip in a park full of people and hit one of them, would they claim that they had no idea they were there? A situation of such condition could imply plain ignorance, and such an individual may deserve the consequences that follow. However, if the park had a warning indicating that one should be cautious of people swinging their whips and someone got struck by one of these individuals, factual ignorance is evident. The victim chose to ignore the indicated instructions; thus, the accused person may use it as a moral excuse. A dispute, however, arises in the first case. Shouldn’t the hurt individual already know that someone was swinging their whip and avoid them altogether to prevent injury? After all, parks are free spaces, and one may do as they please. Factual ignorance is, therefore, evident, too, in the victim for not taking the necessary precaution themselves.

We face the obligation to acquaint ourselves with the necessary facts and information that helps us take the required precautions. We could do such by undertaking adequate research about a particular place, watching the news, and interacting with personnel who possess the relevant information regarding our activities. For instance, Mary visited Saudi Arabia clad in Western dressing, unaware of the heavy restrictions imposed by the nation concerning female dressing. She consequently faced a ton of backlash from the local authorities, who forced her to dress appropriately. Mary did not research the country before her visit and, unfortunately, had no one to inform her about the nation’s culture. Her case is undoubtedly a circumstance resulting from moral ignorance; thus, she may use it as an excuse to defend her method of dressing.

Another great instance of moral ignorance is evident in the ancient slave trade during the Biblical period. There existed no evidence to warn people against the form of commerce, and people regarded it as a standard type of business. If a particular slave trader sells a young man to a willing customer, according to them, there is nothing wrong with what they did. There exist no laws against the said purchase, and the society, too, has no issue with the action. The buyer, therefore, does not believe that their actions are wrong, and they are blameless for them. If the buyer had some religious rules influencing them, they would certainly be acting in the unadorned rebellion of their conscience and the religious dogma. Factual ignorance goes hand in hand with factors such as negligence or recklessness of one’s beliefs, and thus in such a case, they would be acting in the oversight of their religious law. Therefore, factual ignorance would be culpable in such a situation.

Critics may dispute the claim that blameless ignorance would apply in the case of a slave trader. Activists may voice out against such a decision, but the truth remains that in ancient times, slavery was acceptable. The trader is blameless for failure to possess the knowledge that slave trading is wrong. The appropriate attitude to maintain towards such a person would be the ‘objective attitude’ stated by Strawson. Such may involve condemning the trader’s actions and voicing against the slave trade. But we should in no way hold him wrong for what he has done since, according to him, all is well. The same applies to the ancient men, who failed to believe in the importance of educating a woman. Regardless of how rich they were, few exposed their daughters to formal education with the view that women’s responsibility was to cook, clean, and take care of the children. The feminists of the modern world would be outraged by such behavior, but in the earlier days, it was widely accepted. Women who possessed a formal education were often regarded as rebels, and it was common for their husbands to leave them for other uneducated ladies. A father who failed to educate his daughters could be viewed as acting out of blameless ignorance. We may want to hold them guilty for their actions, but the truth of the matter is that they do no wrong. It was merely the existing societal manner of doing things, and they didn’t believe they were wrong. They are blameless for their moral ignorance.

If the said father, observing his daughter’s lives later when they are much older and past a school-going age, started regretting his decision of failing to take his daughters to school, he still would not be guilty of the unfortunate turn out of his daughters. He would be suffering what is known as ‘agents regret’ (Rosen, 2020). Suppose a long-distance bus driver popped into a restaurant for some water and received a laced drink. Consequently, after hitting the road once more, he dozes off on the wheel and crashes the bus, injuring several travelers. He would feel remorse for the harm he caused but would be blameless for the crash to some degree. However, if he went in and took an intoxicating drink knowingly, subsequently crashing the bus and leading to multiple cases of harm, it would portray a form of moral ignorance, but not a blameless one.

If one does not believe their actions to be wrong, with no mismanagement of their personal beliefs, would they be blameless for acting wrongly? Suppose a soldier sent to a warzone spotted a child headed to his camp in the possession bombing equipment, and after several warnings hurled at the kid, he ends up shooting the kid regarding his firm belief that he was protecting his country. Would they be blameless for shooting a young child? An agent is blameless ignorant for a moral truth because he has done everything required to traverse it (Rosen, 2020). The soldier here is blamelessly ignorant of a moral truth since he warned the child to stop, and they did not. A failure to take them down would result in the deaths of several members of his troop. They are blameless for their mistake too. Most of the time, we often assume that the agent was negligent in thinking before they undertook their actions, but sometimes there is inadequate time to reflect, and if they acted on uncorrupted beliefs, they might just be blameless for any actions or damages that result from their misconduct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Rosen, G. (2020). Culpability and Ignorance. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.