Do You have a Moral Right to be Willfully Ignorant?

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

If so -- if you do have a moral right to be willfully ignorant -- do you still have a moral right to be willfully ignorant if your willful ignorance contributes to someone else's harm? For instance, you decide not to have your child vaccinated on false grounds. Your child catches the flu and infects six other children. Did you have a moral right to your willful ignorance?

This is what it comes down to. You don't have a right to harm somebody else. You have a right to be as ignorant as you choose, but that ignorance is no excuse or defense when it comes to harming somebody else.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "moral right" or how it applies to people being ignorant. Most people don't think they're being willfully ignorant - they simply don't have the tools to determine what is true or not. If people don't have the ability to ascertain what is the most reliable information, I don't know if it's meaningful to associate that with a type of immorality.

[strikeviperMKII]

If you have logical evidence (I assume this is what you mean when you say sound reasoning0 that a certain choice will lead to undesirable consequences, and you go against that, you are being illogical. that's the easy part.

Ethics aren't so easy, because they are not logic. When you say 'the truth', if you mean the most logical outcome of a choice, say getting sick because you didn't get the shots, then you are not talking about 'the truth'. The logically correct answer is not truth, but it is true.

The truth is that we have the ability to choose the logical path or the illogical path, morality of it aside.

Personally, I would say that bringing harm to others is immoral. As far as having an opinion about something...morality doesn't factor in as far as I'm concerned. Morality is in action, I think, much more than it is in words.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

This is what it comes down to. You don't have a right to harm somebody else. You have a right to be as ignorant as you choose, but that ignorance is no excuse or defense when it comes to harming somebody else.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "moral right" or how it applies to people being ignorant. Most people don't think they're being willfully ignorant - they simply don't have the tools to determine what is true or not. If people don't have the ability to ascertain what is the most reliable information, I don't know if it's meaningful to associate that with a type of immorality.

I'd agree with that. I personally feel I have an ethical responsibility to base my opinions on the best available evidence, but I wouldn't expect the same from, say, a carrot.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by strikeviperMKII

If you have logical evidence (I assume this is what you mean when you say sound reasoning0 that a certain choice will lead to undesirable consequences, and you go against that, you are being illogical. that's the easy part.

Ethics aren't so easy, because they are not logic. When you say 'the truth', if you mean the most logical outcome of a choice, say getting sick because you didn't get the shots, then you are not talking about 'the truth'. The logically correct answer is not truth, but it is true.

The truth is that we have the ability to choose the logical path or the illogical path, morality of it aside.

Personally, I would say that bringing harm to others is immoral. As far as having an opinion about something...morality doesn't factor in as far as I'm concerned. Morality is in action, I think, much more than it is in words.

I really like your post, but it got me to thinking. Just what is willful ignorance?

As Mr.Trout and others have said, most folks don't have the tools or cannot utilize their tools properly to reach the truth of the matter. They are ignorant, but not willfully ignorant.

I believe to be willfully ignorant, one would have to gain something by being ignorant. This would be ignorance by convenience.

If this ignorance caused someone to lose something while at the same time their convenient ignorance gave them great gain, I could see where morals would come into play here.

I have to ask, is it even possible to be willfully ignorant in the first place if you know all along what the enlightenment will cost you?