"Ignorance is not innocence but sin"

Robert Browning Hamilton’s assertion that ignorance is not innocence but sin challenges the notion that failing to know is a morally neutral state. At its heart, this statement argues that willful lack of knowledge, or even passive acceptance of ignorance, carries a moral responsibility. Innocence traditionally implies purity, a lack of culpability, especially arising from not having knowledge of wrongdoing. Yet, to mistake ignorance for innocence is to overlook the duty each person holds to seek truth and understanding.

Hamilton’s use of the word “sin” points to a serious deviation from an ethical path. Ignorance, when avoidable, is not an accidental void but an abdication of the responsibility to be aware, of ourselves, of others, of the consequences of our actions. For example, in the context of social justice, turning a blind eye to injustice because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient to learn about, does not absolve anyone. Rather, it implicates them further, as willful blindness perpetuates harm. This idea resonates deeply in situations where people justify their lack of involvement or concern with “I didn’t know”; Hamilton’s position refutes the adequacy of that stance.

The moral imperative embedded in Hamilton’s words is clear: to strive for knowledge is an ethical obligation. Learning about the world, others, and ourselves is difficult, yet crucial. Ignorance is not simply a lack of information, it is a failure to engage fully with existence and with our communal responsibilities. By coupling ignorance with the concept of sin, Hamilton emphasizes that harm done through lack of awareness is as condemnable as harm done by deliberate action. The phrase calls for accountability, pushing boundaries beyond individual innocence to a broader ethical awareness where actions, and even the refusal to act or know, have profound consequences.