Topics Ethics

Question Is an act immoral if you are ignorant of its consequences? Would there be a difference between acts in which the truth has been arguably ignored, such as a Christian who doesn't let his kid wear a seatbelt because he has faith that God will save the child despite what statistics say, compared to an act in which a person is truly ignorant, such as the father who accidentally forgets to belt the child in or does so ineffectively by accident? Many thanks :)

Accepted:
August 9, 2006

Comments

Suppose I know that half the time the sea is calm, half the time it is very rough. If I send you out in a rowboat without checking the weather, my act is immoral, even though I am ignorant of the consequences.

I would say that the case of someone who believes that God will protect his child from a road accident is different: it's error, not ignorance. Here the moral situation may be more subtle, since we may hesitate to blame people who are acting sincerely on the basis on their beliefs, even if we are convinced that their beliefs are incorrect. But I'm inclined to say that there can be cases where there is a kind of willful ignoring of the evidence that leads to moral culpability.