Is it wrong for someone to be held responsible for their ignorance if their actions accidentally cause harm to others? Factual ignorance can be defined as when someone does something morally wrong because they don't know or realize that the actions they committed were wrong. Should Susie from the suggestion be morally excused for her carelessness in confusing cyanide with sugar to put in her friend Jane's drink and accidentally poisoning her? There are some cases where factual ignorance can sometimes function as a moral excuse, and it has proven to be the key argument on this topic. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayAccording to the lesson slide on ignorance and guilt, moral responsibility for one's actions is determined by two conditions. The first condition is the Control Condition which explains that "a person can only be held responsible for things that depend on him" (Bernecker 2) means that a person is held responsible for his actions depending on the choices he makes with the committed intention. The second condition is the Knowledge Condition which explains that "an action can be responsible only to the extent that its agent knows what he is doing" and says that even if Susan is the one who mistakes the cyanide for sugar, this does not mean that intended to harm Jane but give her a delicious cup of tea. This also rules out the Control Condition for Susan's case because even if Susan had chosen cyanide thinking it was sugar, her choice would have been sugar, not cyanide to poison her friend. The control condition and the knowledge condition play a huge role in determining that there are some cases in which factual ignorance can sometimes function as a moral excuse because, for factual ignorance to function as a moral excuse, the person does not have to choose between harm someone intentionally and/or must be unaware of the variable factor leading to that person's harm. I believe that factual ignorance can work as a moral excuse sometimes if the person causing harm to another did not intend to commit the morally wrong act of harm. In high school, my English teacher told the class a story about a girl who was allergic to peanut butter and was kissed by her boyfriend who before the kiss had eaten a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch and was unaware about the fact that his girlfriend is allergic to peanut butter. The girl was sent to the hospital because of the kiss and the boy got away with the harmful act because even though he hurt her, it was not his intention to hurt her but instead to show her love and affection. I believe the boy should be morally excused for his actions because it was never his intention to harm her and he didn't know she was allergic to peanut butter. How is it fair that the guy is punished for wanting to show his girlfriend that he loves her and is probably angry and/or sad for unintentionally hurting her? I believe that some things should not be a moral excuse for factual ignorance, such as when someone hurts someone else and doesn't realize that what they are doing to that person is wrong. This way, for example, when a drunk driver hits someone with his car, he chooses to get drunk and chooses not to have a sober driver take him home. If the drunk driver hits someone with his car, he is responsible for that action because it was the bad choices he made that cost the person his life without realizing it. Even if the driver is drunkgives the excuse of having been drunk for his actions, meaning that he was not in his right mind when he performed the morally wrong action, "a person is blameworthy for morally wrong behavior if and only if he expresses a morally questionable attitude or belief" (Bernecker 11) explaining that if he will not accept that what he did was wrong and decides to place the blame on something else, he should not be qualified to be morally excused for ignorance of fact because he chose to drink and did not care to find a sober driver. The boy who kissed his peanut-allergic girlfriend while eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich first and Susan are entitled to a moral excuse of factual ignorance instead of the drunk driver because even though the boy and Susan did not know the hidden variable that causes harm to another person, his intentions were good, but the drunk driver's intentions were bad and he has no right to call his decision a moral excuse of factual ignorance. Comparing the situations in these stories, it seems that a person should not have the right to call their actions a moral excuse of factual ignorance if they had the wrong idea beforehand and chose to do so. Moral ignorance is when someone fails to realize their actions/behaviors are harmful due to the inadequacy of the situation, but is it an excuse? If the person's actions are considered harmful due to their moral ignorance, then they are not excusable. However, if a person's moral ignorance is due to their factual ignorance, then there is a possibility that it may be excusable. According to the ignorance and guilt slide, the principle of guiltless ignorance explains: “if a person is blameless for his ignorance, then he is blameless for acting on that ignorance” (Bernecker 4), describing that there are times when a person's moral ignorance can work as an excuse sometimes and it's not the person's fault as perhaps the moral ignorance of their ignorant behavior could be taught to them and they couldn't see anything else differently. According to the Guiltless Ignorance Principle, there are some cases where Moral Ignorance can be excused as well as some cases for moral excuses of Factual Ignorance. If one does not believe one's action is wrong, and has not mishandled one's beliefs, is one then blameless for acting wrongly? If you do not believe that your action is wrong and you have not mishandled your beliefs, then you are considered blameworthy, not innocent for having acted wrongly according to the expanded details in the ignorance and guilt principle lesson slide questionable attitude and reasonable expectation Principle. According to the Ignorance and Blame slide for in-depth details on the Questionable Attitude Principle, "even people who are blamelessly ignorant of the wrongness of their behavior," such as those who do not believe their action is wrong, "can be blameworthy if their actions express a morally questionable attitude or belief' (Bernecker 12), meaning that even if the person who committed the wrongdoing denies it, he or she is still considered guilty of his or her actions and is therefore not blameless for acting wrongly. According to the ignorance and guilt slide for in-depth details on the reasonable expectation principle, it is "reasonable to expect a person to avoid something only if he can avoid it, given his beliefs and cultural context" (Bernecker 8) case in which even if the one who has mismanaged his beliefs can avoid moral responsibility by claiming that he was taught wrong,.