Ignorance, self-deception and moral accountability

Journal of Value Inquiry 16 (2):101-115 (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The argument of the paper is that, for cases of self-deception that involve grave consequences for others, judging moral accountability need not involve the claim that the person knows he is deceiving himself. ignorance can be genuine and yet be culpable. in disagreement with fingarette, i conclude further that self-deceptive disavowal does not entirely subvert moral authority over what is disavowed.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
91 (#188,511)

6 months
20 (#131,639)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Elizabeth A. Linehan
Saint Joseph's University of Pennsylvania

Citations of this work

Self-deception.Ian Deweese-Boyd - 2023 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Perspectives on Self-Deception.Brian P. McLaughlin & Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (eds.) - 1988 - University of California Press.
Knowing Yourself and Being Worth Knowing.Jordan Mackenzie - 2018 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 4 (2):243-261.
On knowing self-deception.Maury Silver, John Sabini & Maria Miceli - 1989 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19 (2):213–227.
Taking Care: Self-Deception, Culpability and Control.Ian Deweese-Boyd - 2007 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 26 (3):161-176.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Moral Luck.Thomas Nagel - 1993 - In Daniel Statman (ed.), Moral Luck. State University of New York Press. pp. 141--166.

Add more references