If a moral agent (a person) commits an act that he/she believes to be a morally right act, but it turns out the act is morally wrong, is that person blameworthy for committing it?

Good question. And let's hope the answer is yes, since otherwise almost no one would be blameworthy for committing morally wrong acts. After all, it seems likely that Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, Jim Jones (Jonestown massacre), dare I say, Dick Cheney, and many other people who have done manifestly wrong things nonetheless believed they were doing the morally right thing. So, it looks like we need to find a way to blame them for believing that the wrong things they were doing were the right things to do. We want to be able to say, "They should have known better!" (Such cases may be contrasted with people who do bad things because they are weak-willed and do what they believe is wrong--of those people we want to be able to say, "They should have tried harder!") In both the wrong-headed and the weak-willed cases, we sometimes mitigate responsibility and blame if we think it would be unreasonable to expect that they could have known better or could have overcome their, say, addictive or...

I am a recent vegetarian, as well as a lifetime determinist with an anxiety disorders, which typically manifests itself in obsessions with my health and my obligation to myself to maintain physical health without unnecessary detriment to my mental health and the lives of other animals and the environment. Since becoming a vegetarian, I find myself in a bind regarding the amount of stress that has been placed on me, in concern for my health, compared to the rather small impact my vegetarianism has on the environment. I CANNOT, in keeping with my principles, eat a terrestrial animal that suffers as I do. However, my reasons for not eating fish are mostly environmental. Since my stress would be mostly alleviated by the inclusion of fish oil in my diet, over say flax---which, like soy, messes up my estrogen levels, thereby exacerbating other psychological problems, and the alternative (flax instead of fish) has such a minimal effect on the fishing industry and the environment, is it ethically justifiable for...

You cannot live an impact-free life. Our actions affect the environment, often for the worse. The goal should be to minimize detrimental impact. Another goal should be to try to influence others to minimize their detrimental impacts. You sound like you are doing a lot towards both of these goals. Taking fish oil or eating fish, in your case, seems to have greater benefits for you and your ability to work towards these two larger goals than any detrimental impact it would have. And it sounds like it is possible that the amount of guilt and anxiety you are taking on regarding these issues may end up making it harder for you to carry out your positive efforts. Good luck!

Pages