F
fix
Guest
I found this interesting:
The word ignorance is ambiguous. Too often it is taken to mean merely the absence of knowledge, and may be equated with being unlettered, uninstructed, unlearned or simply uninformed. Properly speaking, however, ignorance implies the absence of knowledge that somehow should be present, and then, depending on whether the absence is culpable or not, the ignorance is said to be vincible or invincible.
Ignorance is invincible (from the Latin which means “unconquerable”) when it is present all right but there is no reasonable way, here and now, of dispelling it so that the person cannot be held responsible for doing what he does not know is wrong. He may not even suspect his ignorance, as when a child uses profane or obscene language which was learned from adults, and in all such cases there is no imputability. Or a man may vaguely suspect his ignorance on a point of moral obligation but, under the circumstances, feels it is practically impossible to acquire the knowledge required. A prosecuting attorney may fully suspect that certain individuals are racketeering and tries to get factual. information from victims of the “shakedown.” But they refuse to talk for fear of reprisals. The attorney’s ignorance of the crime is invincible at least until some other legal way is open to secure the evidence desired.
Vincible ignorance can be cleared up if only a man wants to do so. The measure of his negligence to learn the truth determines his guilt when he does something wrong through lack of sufficient knowledge. At one extreme is slight neglect, as when a doctor fails to study a case as thoroughly as he might and thereby causes harm to one of his patients; at the other extreme is an affected sort of ignorance that a person deliberately encourages to avoid what he suspects will be unwelcome knowledge, as the man who is practically certain the woman he is courting is married and yet fails to make sure for fear of learning the truth…