There’s a distinction between subjective rightness and objective rightness (these are poor terms given that they’re both compatible with using moral realism). I’d say that if you torture someone thinking it will be bad but it turns out good, that was subjectively bad but objectively good. Given what you knew at the time you shouldn’t have done it but it was ultimately for the bets.
Ok, but this still leaves unanswered the question of whether and to what degree you have a moral obligation to become better informed about the consequences of your actions. Many people are blissfully unaware of what happens in factory farms. Are they doing nothing (subjectively) wrong, or is there a sense in which we can say they “should have known better”? Can I absolve myself of subjective wrongness just by being an ignoramus?
There’s a distinction between subjective rightness and objective rightness (these are poor terms given that they’re both compatible with using moral realism). I’d say that if you torture someone thinking it will be bad but it turns out good, that was subjectively bad but objectively good. Given what you knew at the time you shouldn’t have done it but it was ultimately for the bets.
Ok, but this still leaves unanswered the question of whether and to what degree you have a moral obligation to become better informed about the consequences of your actions. Many people are blissfully unaware of what happens in factory farms. Are they doing nothing (subjectively) wrong, or is there a sense in which we can say they “should have known better”? Can I absolve myself of subjective wrongness just by being an ignoramus?
They’re doing nothing subjectively wrong if they really don’t know. But if they knowingly don’t look into it then they’re a bit blameworthy.