Daniel Miller

• Ethics 
  
• Philosophy of Action
  
• Moral Psychology

Dr. Miller’s primary research focuses on the relationship between blameworthiness and ignorance. This research begins from the observation that ignorance sometimes functions as a legitimate excuse for morally wrong behavior, and sometimes doesn’t. Many philosophers writing on this topic maintain that ignorance excuses when one’s ignorance itself is non-culpable. Dr. Miller’s work addresses the following questions: does all non-culpable ignorance excuse? And, under what conditions is ignorance itself culpable? Does culpability come in degrees that correspond to degrees of awareness? The answers to these questions have significant implications concerning our view of ourselves as morally responsible agents that are capable of being blameworthy for who we are and for what we do.

Interestingly, the fact that an agent is blameworthy for something does not, on its own, settle whether it would be appropriate for some other agent to blame her for it. Blame may be inappropriate if it would be hypocritical to do so or if the blamer lacks the right sort of relationship with the blamed. In such cases the blamer may not have the right or standing to blame. The appropriateness of blame may also depend upon the cost of blame, or the agent’s response to her own fault. Dr. Miller defends a view according to which hypocritical blamers lack the standing to blame because their hypocrisy involves an implicit rejection of the moral equality of persons.   

Other Interests

Dr. Miller enjoys traveling with his wife, Heather, shooting pool, and playing guitar.   

Courses

• Problems of Philosophy
  
• Current Moral Problems
  
• Ethical Theory
  
• Philosophy of Religion
  
• Moral Responsibility
  
• Health Care Ethics