Jeremy Stangroom

It *is* morally bad to hold slaves, of course, but if a slave-holder has never actually encountered the reasons why it's morally bad, then can he be said to be a bad person?

It seems self-evident to us of course, but maybe it wasn't. Maybe people had to sit down and puzzle out why it was wrong, and it just never occurred to people before that that there might be a problem. They could have just assumed 'it's natural' or whatever.

To say something is morally bad normally entails that a person is culpable for it, but you're arguing they are not culpable... I think that's a tricky position to hold.

Am I morally bad for boiling lobsters today if in 5 years time scientists discover that they are actually in agony, and have a surprisingly advanced reflective consciousness?

No. But not all not knowing is equal. That's the point. Not knowing isn't a sufficient condition for absolution, though it might in certain circumstances - such as your lobster example - be necessary to get you off the hook.

OK, so my position is that X is morally right or wrong irrespective of whether you know or not, but you can't be held morally culpable for X if you've never encountered any reason for why it's wrong.

That position has merit, but it's too hard & fast, I think. For example, what about motivated ignorance - never seeking out a reason? Or simply understanding that suffering, for example, is wrong - i.e., in a direct empathetic/experiential sense?

If you're aware that something *could* be causing suffering to others then it would be immoral to avoid reading the reasons why others strongly believe that it is wrong.