Phillip posed a few questions about the role of ignorance in ethics a few days ago. To see our thoughts on this issue, read the comments; please chew 'em up and spit 'em out (that means spit out comments, preferably criticisms). I've reworded his questions below:
1) Do we have an obligation to determine the morality of our trivial actions?
2) Does ignorance of what is right or wrong in a given situation excuse you from being held morally accountable in that situation?
3) Does ignorance matter in ethics?
I have moved my inital answers to the comments section of Phillip's original post of these questions (see 12.08.05).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Your rewording of my questions was pretty money. Here is my response:
1) You conclude that we have no obligation to determine the morality of even our trivial actions, but we do have an obligation to "learn the truths in our lives and socities" - wouldn't this imply a priority to what we learn - that we ought first to learn about that which is most relevant to our own actions? Columbus and the conquistadors are found innocent on this charge as they really had no way of knowing they would annilhate whole civilizations through smallpox (or at least the first few conquistadors). However in the present age there is a plethora of information on almost everything we come into contact with every day - perhaps most obvious in the products we buy or the vendors that sell them - but also what school to attend, what job to take, our hobbies and interests, etc.
Here also the argument seems to become circular, as seeking knowledge/truth as relevant to our daily actions/decisions essentially equates to determining the morality of all actions including trivial ones.
2) It sounds like you agree that ignorance does absolve one of moral responsibility - except you seem to see or fear the cop-out response of staying as ignorant as possible to free oneself of as many of the bonds of morality as possible.
In the cases where ignorance was obviously enough to acquit Sam, it was clear he had no reasonable method, motivation or obligation to become knowledgeable (knowledge being available only by internet or by travelling to South America).
In the cases where ignorance wasn't enough to vindicate, the sin appears to be that Sam was ignorant of something he "should" have been aware of (as a CEO being aware of his business practices, or as a customer under contract of understanding the business's practices).
It sounds like in former case, Sam's ignorance was moral, whereas in the latter, the ignorance became immoral - what distinguishes the two? What obligates Sam to know more in the latter case?
I think in the latter cases, there was nothing immoral about the ignorance itself; the immorality was in something else (violating the customer agreement, failing to properly oversee the company).
Which then brings us back to the first dilemna: it seems that ignorance of moral consequences frees one of responsibility for them - but there must be something morally wrong with choosing to remain ignorant of as much as possible in order to keep one's hands clean.
Like Dan said, criticisms welcome.
As an aside... should we make responses to entries as comments or as new entries? I'm choosing Comment here to try and keep relevant discussions together...
Good luck on finals for those in scohol.
To save space, I've posted some information from my writing here in the comments:
Regarding question 2:
Consider the following cases:
1) Information of Food Lion’s unethical practice of using profits to nuke rainforests is available only on the internet. Sam buys something from Food Lion.
2) Before a purchase is made from Food Lion, the purchaser must sign an agreement stipulating that purchaser has read and understands Food Lion's unethical practices (stated above in 1) before the purchase is made. Sam, a literate adult, signs the contract without reading it because he thinks it’s for something trivial and makes a purchase.
Sam appears more responsible for his ignorance in case 2 than in case 1. Thus, ignorance is a more valid excuse in the first case than the second and Sam is more shielded from moral accountability in case 1.
Some more examples:
3)Information of Food Lion’s unethical practices was only available by travelling to South America to see the nuking with your own eyes.
4)Sam was the CEO of Food Lion and unbeknown to him, one of his managers to him was nuking the rainforests.
Ignorance definitely seems like a valid excuse in the third case.
In the fourth case, it would seem that Sam has an obligation to know what's going on in his company and as such he is held morally accountable and would probably be held accountable in court for any wrong that occurred as a result of the nuking. Ignorance is not a valid enough excuse in this case for CEO Sam to escape moral accountability.
Regarding question 3: an unrealistic hypothetical case where ignorance may not matter to the ethics of the situation:
Assume that you believe in absolute rights and wrongs and believe that lying is always wrong. Suppose you were confronted by a man who demanded that you tell him where your mother lives. You tell him the truth (because that is the right thing to do). He leaves, then finds and murders your mother.
Since you believe that telling the truth is always the right thing to do; to you, your ignorance of the man’s intention to murder your mother is irrelevant to the ethics of the situation.
I am going to try to avoid the internet like the plague the next few days before my exam, so I was hurried when I wrote this. I apologize in advance for any unclarity; and as before comments/criticisms welcome.
Shortened version (and easier to read version) of my post below:
I erred when I believed the obligation to seek knowledge/truth of life's truths to be different from the obligation to seek knowledge about trivial things. As Phillip pointed out they are in fact the same thing. So, below I recognize that these obligations are in fact the same and in refining my position I point out that perhaps the underlying issue is the problem of induction. In trying to justify the obligation to seek knowledge/truth of all our actions, we encounter an underlying problem with human knowledge; i.e. its unreliable nature.
1) I agree with Phillip that my argument is circular... As he pointed out, “seeking knowledge/truth as relevant to our daily actions/decisions essentially equates to determining the morality of all actions including trivial ones". I have tried to explain this below. I should also point out that it is also incoherent, as two of my premises are incompatible. That I deny we have an obligation to determine the morality of all our actions is inconsistent with my affirmation of the duty we have to seek the truth/as relevant to our daily actions/decisions; I end up denying and affirming the same thing. I have also tried to explain this incoherence here (at the very bottom of response 1) and how it could be corrected.
Phillip's point that my argument is circular sheds light on one of life's quirks, the problem of induction. Below I've outlined in my argument where I have used the principle of induction and where the problem of induction comes in. Also, I’ve indicated the circularity C1 and invalidity C2 in my argument.
1) We have an obligation to seek knowledge necessary to fulfill our duties.
2) It is in violation of our duties to be ignorant of knowledge within our responsibility.
3) There are an innumerable number of actions, decisions in one’s life, thus it is practically impossible for a human to determine the morality of all of them.
4) Thus, it is unreasonable to expect a human to determine all knowledge outside his or her responsibility as delineated by his/her duties.
5) We classify this knowledge as 'trivial' [by induction].
6) Premise 5 implies a prioritization of duties; seek knowledge most relevant only to actions and knowledge concerned with trivial actions.
7) We may mistakenly classify knowledge as 'trivial' or unimportant to our responsibilities. [problem of induction]
8) Mistakenly ignored 'trivial' knowledge results in a violation of our duty.
C) Thus there stems an obligation to determine the 'truth' (knowledge, morality) necessary to fulfill our duties. In other words, there is an obligation to determine the morality of all our daily actions/decisions including the trivial ones.
C1) C is invalid because it is incompatible with 4.
C2) Argument is circular because the conclusion (C) is the same as premise 1.
If you already know about induction and the problem of induction, you won't miss anything by skipping to the next row of stars or skimming the next three paragraphs.
********************
The following is an example of the principle of induction.
1) observe x many times to be y ; see thousands of black ravens
2) thus all x is y ; thus all ravens are black
This is the process of induction and it is one we use everyday; e.g. it is by induction that we arrive at the conclusion that brushing our teeth is trivial, or how we classify the decision of whether to shop at Food Lion versus Harris Teeter as trivial. It was a process Columbus probably used when he subconsciously thought his breathing to be trivial when he observed no harm to arise from it (he observed no connection between his sneezing/breathing and Native Americans dying). In the above examples, an obvious failing of induction is visible; the generalization that all ravens are black does not follow logically from the observation that thousands of ravens that are black. David Hume made two insightful criticisms about induction that still are discussed today.
1) The future is not guaranteed to resemble the past --> just because the sun rises everyday, doesn't mean it will always rise everyday. (this relates to the raven example above)
2) The justification for the principle of induction is circular --> Induction has worked before, thus it will continue to work; this justification of induction itself invokes induction.
Despite the obvious failings of induction and that we cannot logically justify the use of induction, we still like to rely on past observations to guide our action; and thus it seems induction practical and useful. This paradox is known as the problem of induction.
*******************
As was pointed out, my argument to justify the obligation not to be ignorant is circular; I believe this circularity arises because of its reliance upon induction (it is by induction that we perceive any of our actions to be trivial.) How do we reconcile this circularity?
One way to reconcile this circularity is to accept the circularity as flawed, and perhaps inevitable. I accept that I use induction daily, and as such concede that induction is a thorn in my side and in my argument above. Another way to reconcile this circularity is to replace it an obligation stemming from a natural law or as necessitated by a god-like being; (however, the discussion of the existence of natural laws and of god-like beings merits its own thread so I won’t go into depth on that here.)
With regard to the incoherence between the obligation of ‘not being ignorant’, and the impracticality and impossibility of fulfilling it: I think this incoherence arises because I mistakenly did not differentiate earlier between the duties of an individual man and the duties of mankind. I think this distinction could possibly remove that incoherence (but I’ll attempt that later).
It is impossible and impractical for a human to determine the morality all his actions as it is impossible for a human to have infinite knowledge; however I believe that it may not be far fetched to say that mankind has the ability to do this. Perhaps, after many millennia and much human advancement, mankind will truly determine the 'truths' in our lives and societies. So I believe that in general the more knowledge one seeks throughout his or her life, the more one does to help mankind stumble across the ‘truths in his lives and societies’.
One reason to disagree with this view is because of the problem of induction; we will never know for certain whether the knowledge man will have gained is correct because of our reliance on induction and the problem of induction; e.g. (complete knowledge of time and space inaccessible to us; mankind can’t foresee the future and can’t observe other dimensions). Because of this mankind can never escape being ignorant of the ‘real truths’ and as such his ignorance will still be the cause of suffering.
***************
2) RE:“In the cases where ignorance wasn't enough to vindicate, the sin appears to be that Sam was ignorant of something he "should" have been aware of (as a CEO being aware of his business practices, or as a customer under contract of understanding the business's practices). It sounds like in former case, Sam's ignorance was moral, whereas in the latter, the ignorance became immoral - what distinguishes the two? What obligates Sam to know more in the latter case?”
My stance agrees with what you wrote, that “In the cases where ignorance wasn't enough to vindicate, the sin appears to be that Sam was ignorant of something he "should" have been aware of (as a CEO being aware of his business practices, or as a customer under contract of understanding the business's practices).” What distinguishes the two cases are the respectively different duties that each has in the situation.
RE:"I think in the latter cases, there was nothing immoral about the ignorance itself; the immorality was in something else (violating the customer agreement, failing to properly oversee the company).”
Are you referring to ignorance in general? Or to the lack of knowledge of profits being used to nuke rainforests? Phillip, your restatement of the dilemma… has the condition 'as much as possible in order to keep one's hands clean'. To me this suggests that one is no longer ignorant of certain knowledge that would render an action morally wrong and is actively seeking to ‘ignore’ certain knowledge to avoid wrong. Am I misreading this part?
In premise 6 in my proof above of our obligation to seek knowledge I jumbled up my words.
It should read:
6) Premise 5 implies a prioritization of duties; we seek knowledge most relevant to our non-trivial actions.
(This statement probably should be combined with 5);
sorry for this confusion!
DANIBOY GO STUDY
I thought my previous (long) post was kind of hurried (and way too long) so here is a clearer version that also incorporates a few of Luis’ points. Basically, I argue that you can escape moral accountability in cases where you are ignorant of the moral consequences; however it may still serves society’s interests to hold you morally accountable in order to make an example of what is considered wrong.
******
P0) A person has duties or responsibilities to himself and society that are morally right to fulfill.
P1) A person has an obligation to obtain knowledge necessary to fulfill his/her duties.
P2) It is unreasonable to obligate a person to know everything. (from P2)
C1) It is reasonable to obligate a person to obtain only knowledge that is necessary to fulfill his/her duties. (from P0, P1, & P2)
P3) A person’s acquired knowledge is not certain for various reasons.
C2) Thus, his/her perceived set of duties could be wrong. A person can never know with absolute certainty whether or not he/she is fulfilling the ‘true’ rights and wrongs. (from C1 & P3)
C3) Within systems of ethics that view morality as dependent only on the moral consequences of an action, a person can escape moral accountability for any of his actions ignorant of the relevant moral consequences. (from C2)
P4) It serves the interests of a society for it to educate its members of the moral obligations it expects of them.
P5) Punishment for past ignorance sometimes serves as a useful means of education that deters acts of future ignorance.
C4) Within systems of ethics that view morality as dependent only on the moral consequences of an action, it may serve the interests of a society to hold a person responsible for his/her actions that are done in ignorance of the relevant moral consequences. (from P4 & P5)
C5) A person can escape moral accountability in cases where you are ignorant of the moral consequences; however it may still serve a society’s interests to hold the person morally accountable. (C3 & C4)
With regard to the original questions:
Does ignorance absolve one of moral accountability?
As Luis points out, it depends on the ethical system we are using. I think most would agree that it is imporant to consider in someway the moral consequences of our actions. In response to the question, in cases where one is ignorant of the ethically relevant consequences AND individuals in these cases are not bound by society to have a better knowledge of those consequences, that person is innocent of any wrong associated with those consequences.
When the harm of consequences of a person’s ignorance is significant to a society, society may determine that it serves its interests to judge the person's ignorance as inexcusable. Even though it is believed that a person is be morally absolved from his/her ignorant actions, holding people accountable for their ignorance in some cases is good for society in order to teach to its members, the obligations society that expects of them.
Is there an obligation to not be ignorant?
Yes, it stems from a persons's requirement to fulfill his/her duties or obligations. However, the justification for this obligation is weak in the sense that the acquisition of knowledge by humans invokes the principle of induction (in P1) and is circular (as Phillip pointed out, C1 implies P1).
OK, time to go study :(
good luck man...
I think I'm pretty much satisfied with the conclusion that ignorance does absolve moral accountability.
My follow-up to this conclusion was then that a person could then decide to try their best to not learn anything every again; to avoid books, news, magazines, websites, intelligent discussion; to steer clear of politics, domestic policy, foreign policy; to hide as much as possible from knowledge of all the injustices in this world so as to be shielded by ignorance from responsibility for them.
Of course this doesn't absolve one from what they already know, but they can respond by from now on knowing/learning as little as possible - so as to be held morally accountable for fewer things than if they learned as much as they were able.
(Or perhaps you could drink/smoke/snort/bash away your brain cells somehow and erase everything you know.)
To me, this doesn't feel right - which is why I believe there must exist, within the same system of ethics, something that would make choosing this path of ignorance also wrong.
I believe in seeking after truth, for now, as tautological (I think that's the right word) - it is a principle to live by, in essence, just because it is right. I can offer no backup other than existential/inductive evidence - that in my experience, this proposition has held true, so it must be true always.
I don't think it has to be tautological though - I think there must be a better reason why it would be immoral to choose ignorance. Somebody help me find it!!
also, to Dan's point about society punishing ignorant behavior - I'm looking for why choosing to remain as ignorant as possible is morally wrong, not just sub-optimal or not-utilitarian (i.e not Mill's definition of wrong) - why it is a violation of the same ethical system that says ignorance of moral consequences absolves one from them.
Maybe a way out of this dilemma is to concede that there is no valid argument that says 'ignorance is wrong' that exists under the same system of ethics that says 'ignorance absolves immoral actions'. The ethics that says individuals are absolved from the immorality of actions whose immorality they are ignorant of holds that the moral content of any action lies only in the intent of the action. (e.g. with regard to the Food Lion example, since there was no immoral intent in the action of buying groceries, the action is not considered immoral.) Thus, the decision to seek ignorance cannot be considered immoral unless there is an immoral intent behind that decision. Seeking ignorance is in itself, neither right nor wrong. In the same manner, seeking knowledge is in itself, neither right nor wrong.
In short, any moral righteousness associated with seeking knowledge derives only from the intent to do right. For example, let’s assume that it is a self-evident truth that human life is valuable; the following argument then follows:
1) it is right to value human life
2) knowledge can be used as a means to that end
3) seeking knowledge is right if and only if it is employed as a means to benefit human life
In other words, it is less correct to assert that 'seeking knowledge is morally right' than to assert that 'seeking knowledge as a means to the benefit of human life is morally right.'
******************
-Under this argument, individuals are still absolved from the immorality of actions whose immorality they ignorant of.
-In addition, individuals are not compelled by any obligation to seek knowledge; thus it is not wrong to seek ignorance. It is wrong however when one seeks ignorance with the intention of causing harm. (E.g. it would be considered immoral to choose to erase from your memory, knowledge of why shopping in Food Lion is morally wrong if you have the intention to keep shopping there.)
-It seems you wanted to avoid saying 'seeking ignorance is wrong, just because it is' (I think necessary truth or self-evident truth is what you intended by tautology). Rather than saying 'seeking the truth is right, just because it is a self-evident truth that it is', it says 'seeking the truth can be right, because it can be a means to valuing human life, which is a self-evident truth'. As we've witnessed the ability of knowledge to solve humanity's problems (e.g. finding cures for illness), if we seek to actively do good, then seeking knowledge appears to be a useful means to accomplish this. Thus one reason for us to believe in seeking truth instead of ignorance is that seeking truth has been, and remains a good way to benefit humankind.
Hope this helps!
On a similar note, it is possible to argue that knowledge is the 'only' means to value human life but this is a weaker assertion because cases can be found where seeking knowledge has hurt human life (e.g. nukes). Also, it could be argued that knowledge is itself an end, not merely a means to another end, but I have no idea where to begin on this one.
On a separate note I think that ‘tautological’ refers to statements like: Either the sky is blue or the sky is not blue.
This statement is made up of two simpler claims, (the sky is blue... the sky is not blue...), none of which have to be true in order for the tautology to be logically valid. A tautology is a statement that is necessarily true because of its logical form, regardless of whether or not its premises are true.
Impressive... I think you figured it out.
To sum up in my own words -
1) In this ethical system, actions themselves are amoral
2) The actions of seeking ignorance or knowledge are amoral
3) Moral value, in this sytem, lies in the intention behind the action (e.g. manslaughter vs. murder)
4) The decision to absolutely seek ignorance would be morally sound if and only if each time ignorance is sought, there is no immoral intent behind it
Seeking to absolve onself of moral accountability is a tricky intent... it doesn't seem plausible, in practice, for it to be completely void of ill-intent.
However in theory I believe it is an amoral decision.
Thanks for the correction on tautology, I think I've been using it wrong for a while now.
Seeking to absolve *oneself* of moral accountability is a tricky *decision*
Post a Comment