Moral vs. Factual Ignorance

• Moral ignorance, not knowing something is wrong, does not always excuse someone from blame.
• This contrasts with factual ignorance, such as being unaware a drink is poisoned.
• Moral ignorance often stems from a person’s own moral failings.
• Moral failings include lack of concern, laziness, or self-deception.
• One can be blameworthy for wrongdoing even without knowing it was wrong.
• This is true if the ignorance results from bad moral character or lack of effort to be good.

Factual vs. Moral Ignorance

• Factual ignorance can excuse a person because it’s not always their fault.
• Example of factual ignorance: not knowing a gun was loaded.
• Moral ignorance doesn’t necessarily excuse because it may reflect moral indifference or willful ignorance.
• Example of moral ignorance: not knowing slavery is wrong.

Historical Examples

• Historical examples include slaveholders, Nazis, or sexist individuals.
• They may not have realized they were doing wrong, but could still be blameworthy.
• Blame applies if they failed to try to understand or empathize with others, or ignored moral doubts.

Source of Ignorance

• Ask: “Why is this person morally ignorant?” to determine blame.
• Blame applies if it's due to willful neglect, apathy, or lack of moral effort.
• Less or no blame if it’s due to genuine, unavoidable confusion, like being misled despite one’s best efforts.

Good Faith Effort

• We all have a duty to think critically about right and wrong, and not just accept what society says.
• Failing to reflect, question norms, or listen to others’ experiences often leads to moral ignorance.

Ignorance as Part of Wrongdoing

• Being ignorant of wrongdoing can be part of what's wrong with a person’s character.
• Example: If someone is racist and doesn’t realize it, the ignorance doesn’t excuse them, it shows the depth of their racism.

Conclusion

• Moral ignorance doesn’t automatically excuse wrongdoing.
• We are responsible for being morally aware.
• Failing to do that can be just as bad, or worse, than knowingly doing wrong.

Nomy Arpaly's Argument

• Arpaly argues that lacking awareness of moral wrongdoing does not absolve one from blame.
• This is especially true when this ignorance stems from a deficiency in moral concern or effort.

Types of Ignorance:

• Factual ignorance may excuse an individual.
• Moral ignorance does not, particularly if it's due to negligence in moral reasoning.

Responsibility:

• Individuals are accountable for their moral ignorance when it results from a lack of due diligence in understanding moral principles.
• This negligence reflects a disregard for moral obligations.

Moral Worth and Motivation:

• True moral worth arises from acting out of genuine concern for what is morally right (de re).
• This is in contrast to merely following moral rules (de dicto).
• Moral motivation should be rooted in authentic moral understanding.

Example – Steve

• Steve believes certain discriminatory practices are acceptable due to his upbringing.
• His actions are still blameworthy.
• This is because his moral ignorance results from a failure to question and reflect upon these beliefs.

Comparison with Other Philosophers: Susan Wolf

• Wolf presents "JoJo," the son of a dictator who adopts his father's immoral behaviors.
• Wolf argues that JoJo's actions lack moral responsibility due to his environment.
• Arpaly would assert that JoJo is still blameworthy if he fails to critically assess his moral beliefs.

Comparison with Other Philosophers: Galen Strawson

• Strawson posits that individuals cannot be truly morally responsible due to the deterministic nature of the universe.
• Arpaly challenges this.
• Individuals are responsible for their moral ignorance when it stems from a lack of moral concern, regardless of determinism.

Determinism Argument

• If determinism is true, individuals cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
• Arpaly counters this by emphasizing that moral responsibility arises from an individual's capacity for moral reflection and concern.
• Even in a deterministic framework, individuals are accountable for their moral ignorance if it results from negligence in moral reasoning.