Abstract
The philosophical literature displays a lively debate on the conditions under which ignorance excuses. In this paper, I formulate and defend an answer to two questions that have not yet been discussed in the literature on exculpatory ignorance. First, which kinds of propositional attitudes that count as ignorance provide an excuse? I argue that we need to consider four options here: having a false belief, suspending judgement on a true proposition, being deeply ignorant of a truth, and having a true belief that falls short of knowledge. Secondly, ignorance of which propositions counts as an excuse? I discuss four candidates: ignorance of one's obligation, ignorance that one is able to meet that obligation, ignorance of how to meet that obligation, and lack of foresight regarding that obligation. I argue that we can give a satisfactory account of exculpatory ignorance only if we pay attention to these two neglected issues. © 2014 The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrews. All rights reserved.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 478-496 |
Journal | Philosophical Quarterly |
Volume | 64 |
Issue number | 256 |
Early online date | 7 Mar 2014 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2014 |