We are responsible for our unconscious selves. Ignorance of unconscious influences does not remove moral responsibility. It is not enough to simply argue, “I didn’t know, so don’t blame me.”

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

So how does one go about deducing another’s unconscious motivations?


We have a group of people saying we cannot be held responsible for anything because of determinism, while another group is trying to hold us responsible for things we don’t (or at least might not) have any control over (even in not strictly deterministic systems)


The article doesn’t convince me. It rings of parallels with ignorance of the law is not a defence, but one being an apple and the other a banana. Being unaware of of unconscious is not a fault of the agent. What a pile of tripe.


What if I snore and this angers my partner? Am I at fault for snoring as I sleep?


wait. do you understand what subconscious means? tldr; this article can be summed up with “You shoulda know better” and the proper response from anyone with a brain should be, “Why” because this article fails to show even the slightest connection and commits numerous association fallacies along the way. There are so many bad ideas in that paper…and if that’s gonna get the philosophy tag, I’m about to go philosophy tag team and start dropping elbows from the top rope. Paragraph 1: Begging the question. Perhaps I eat cats, so running over a cat is not only not a moral bad it is a physical good. Perhaps I’m at war with the race of feline, so why it may not be morally good or bad, the only good kitty is dead kitty. Lets say that kitty with the most delicious kitty in all the land, should I be called the worlds greatest chef? Lets say that kitty was the kingpin kitty, the hinge-pin of their entire kitty organization and I just ended the kitty war. Should i be given a medal for valor for accidentally running over the kitty? then how can i be morally responsible for a kitty I didn’t know I ran over? Paragraph 2: I assume that this is a list of noted “subconscious bias” because if we are establishing a connection between the kitty and this…the writer of this needs to rub a couple more brain cells together. Association fallacy. If it’s just a list, then moving on. Bold 1: Speaking of association fallacy. You cannot show benevolence from this sort of thing. Which would be necessary to show “moral responsibility” Paragraph 3-6: I guess you can, but what kind of BS philosophy involves you repeating the phrase, “ignorance doesn’t excuse moral responsibility” in every paragraph, like are you trying to make it so by repeating it? Because none of those paragraphs were slam dunk cases for that position. Or perhaps you are still tying things to the kitty cat, which I am under no moral obligation to be morally responsible for. This is already going to be a long comment, u/IAI_Admin but I think we all agree that you have made more assumptions, consciously then any unconsciously bias person can possibly commit and for this reason your entire article is poppycock. I’d be more than happy to continue breaking down your article. But this is not philosophy, what you have posted is dogma.