Response from David Brink on April 10, 2008

Surely, in some cases we do know what the consequences of our actions would be. I know that if I break your arm that I harm you. In such cases, there is no excuse of ignorance. Both law and morality also assume that I can be held responsible for adverse consequences of my actions that were reasonably predictable. And many actions I might perform are reasonably likely to issue in adverse consequences. The fact that I might not have known that my action would produce such adverse consequences is not relevant if I could have reasonably predicted that such consequences would ensue. Howeover, morality and law (criminal law) do not in general recognize responsibility for adverse consequences of one's action that were not reasonably foreseeable. To think otherwise would be to embrace strict liability, which both moral responsibility and the criminal law reject. Strict liability is a feature of some forms of civil law, but even where strict liability is defensible its justification appeals more to creating incentives for better behavior than to delivering just deserts.