Non-moral ignorance exculpates. Trivially, if Sasha puts poison into Bob's tea, but thinks she's putting in sugar, then Sasha is morally blameless. This is something modern ethics almost all agree on.

^(Whether "moral ignorance" exculpates is more contentious than the matter "non-moral ignorance", but we don't need to get into that yet.)

This has interesting implications and ties in with many other truisms, such as "knowledge is power" and "with power comes responsibility" (thanks, Uncle Ben!).

I could be minding my own business, enjoying my favourite brand of shoes (innocent and blameless), but then some little dick tells me that my particular brand of shoes were made from slave labour. Thanks a lot. Now my enjoyment of this brand is ruined. Now I have a moral obligation never to buy from that company again, because the burden of knowledge has made me more responsible for my actions.

How unfortunate it is that ignorance is bliss.

This is obviously "unfair" in a way, because the consequence of this idea is that the ignorant have more freedom to act while being morally blameless.

I see this as a major point of contention among rpers. The gripe often expressed is that certain people are "naturals" of playing the social game. They don't consciously think of what they are doing. They are effectively ignorant of what they are doing.

Looking at three cases:

  1. Suppose, we have a player who is naturally aloof, perhaps because he just has too much going for him, blows off a girl often and is emotionally unavailable. Suppose that as a result, the girl becomes more desperate for his attention. None of what he did was carefully planned. None of it was deliberate.

  2. We have a the same player. This time he is told by his friends how his actions are hurtful. Maybe they accuse him of abuse. They explain how little effort it would be to be slightly more emotionally available. He doesn't care and continues behaving as he always has. He has his justifications. The woman is free to leave. He was just "being himself" after all.

  3. We have a socially incompetent guy. He always assumed that the right thing to do was be self-sacrificing. Be attentive. Be emotionally and physically available even to his own detriment. Suppose that as a result, the girl gets turned off. (Ew. He's so clingy and desperate.) Or maybe she simply starts taking him for granted. Then some rper infects his mind, and he decides to change his methods. He starts blowing off women he's with. He's not as emotionally available. This, however, is all a front. He's carefully planned his actions and they have an intended result. What he's doing, most of us would agree is manipulative. Maybe it's even deceitful in a way, as he's not "being himself".

It's important to note that in each of the above three cases, the observable actions of the guys towards the girl are all identical.

Unfortunately for the third guy, it seems he's a bit fucked. He's morally burdened by the knowledge of what he's doing. He's consciously and wittingly working towards the result that the first guy was achieving naturally. The first guy is basically off the hook. The second guy might be called neglectful or irresponsible... but the third guy is actively being manipulative and dishonest.

The other option, of course, is for the third guy to simply give up, and "go find a worthwhile woman who can appreciate him for who he truly is!" Which of course isn't very helpful if the third guy really wants a physical relationship and validation, and doesn't have the patience society expects of him.

We can even go further and extent this problem to another gripe many rpers seem to have. Many claim that women are generally more "natural" at the social game than men. I inclined to agree with this.

Can't say I don't sympathize with the third guy. Modern morality is in this case incompatible with fairness or justice. A kid who was born wealthy, spoiled rotten, afflicted by "affluenza", and kept ignorant to consequences of his actions can technically be morally pristine compared to me... if I was born poor, grew sick of it, and engaged in morally questionable behaviour to climb the economic class ladder. What am I supposed to do? Just give up because morality and the burden of knowledge prevents me from acting efficiently? I'm sure most of us can sympathize in some ways. Most people I know sympathize with Gatsby, after all. I don't want to tell anyone that he/she should be forced to settle with what he/she was born with.

Still, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I'm not exactly "pro-fairness" and against morality. In the linked discussion/thread that inspired this one, I explained to CFRProflcopter that I reject a "completely fair world" precisely because I feel that fairness/justice is often incompatible with many other ideals, and morality is one of those ideals. How about you guys?

Another concern I have is the practicality of this idea. All those philosophers that claimed that "morality is just meant to be a limiter on the strong" are unfortunately scoring points due to this exculpating quality of ignorance. Knowledge and awareness should be encouraged. I'd prefer it not just be a burden.