Many of us believe that if some acts wrongly out of culpably ignorance, they are morally blameworthy to some degree. I offer a defense of this view against the powerful "Liberal Challenge" to the position. My defense proceeds by arguing that facts about a given agent's quality of will can play a different explanatory role in the larger theory of blameworthiness and the structure of exculpation than is often assumed.

It's been argued that better- than is non-transitive – that there are some value bearers for which better- than fails to generate an acyclic ordering. Michael Huemer has offered a powerful objection to this view, which he dubs ‘The Dominance Argument’. In what follows, I consider the extent to which there is a plausible response to be made on behalf of those who hold that better- than is non-transitive. I conclude that there is.