4

There's a word/phrase that I feel is on the tip of my tongue. How would you describe someone being unacceptably neglectful, disregarding, unprepared, or purposefully acting irresponsibly? Similar to being ignorant of the law. When someone should have known or done something, but did not. As if someone were to close their eyes and drive into traffic, and then defend their actions in the event of a crash because they didn't know any cars were there.

Perhaps I'm overthinking here but I feel like there's a specific phrase/word that describes the connotation I'm thinking of. I feel like it may literally be a law term.

8
  • 2
    This is willful blindness, but I call it plainly inconsiderate. Commented Aug 14 at 18:23
  • Willful blindness is good, and a good way to describe the car analogy especially, but the thing I'm thinking of isn't necessarily that they choose not to know, but rather that they should have known.
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 14 at 18:38
  • 3
    you're likely thinking of "willful ignorance", PS surely simple "remind me of a word" SWRs like this should just be on the learner site (which makes it more useful to learners)
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 15 at 12:55
  • 1
    Yup, I'm magic, @SamSabin :) PS just seeing your family name has me crying for Bama football !! 😭
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 16 at 11:01
  • 1
    @Fattie Roll Tide 😄
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 16 at 13:10

8 Answers 8

13

Negligence is a good term here, generally defined more precisely in law; there are varying degrees of negligence, some criminal, some not. See https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/48365/whats-the-difference-between-gross-negligence-and-criminal-negligence

4
  • 1
    I think criminal negligence or gross negligence is probably the law term I had in mind. I still feel like maybe there's another phrase I was thinking of, but I think this deserves to be listed as the correct answer.
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 15 at 7:26
  • Culpable is your word.
    – civitas
    Commented Aug 15 at 9:29
  • use the excellent law SE site for questions about the law and law language. not relevant here
    – Fattie
    Commented Aug 15 at 12:56
  • "Gross negligence"or "willful and wanton disregard" are closely than mere negligence which pretty much just means carelessness.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Aug 17 at 22:46
7

The term recklessness fits both colloquially and legally. Wikipedia defines it as "deliberately and unjustifiably pursu[ing] a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action". A reasonable person would have foreseen that driving into traffic with eyes closed carries a great risk of collision, so deliberately doing so is reckless. Colloquially, the term carries a sense of not caring about the consequences of one's actions in situations where a reasonable person would. The term is really defined in terms of what a reasonable person would do, the actual knowledge of the risks held by the reckless party is almost irrelevant - one can be reckless by knowing about and ignoring risks, or by remaining ignorant of risks that a reasonable person would consider.

3
  • 1
    Recklessness is definitely not what I had in mind, but I like the idea of combining it with what I had written. I think "reckless disregard" is a good option.
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 15 at 7:29
  • 1
    @SamSabin Agree. Recklessness is very close to the accepted answer of negligence, but typically connotes a higher degree of disregard for the consequences. With the driving-into-traffic example you give, the consequences are so easily foreseeable that a jury might infer you're purposefully ignoring them. Whereas if you forget to take your anti-narcolepsy medication and fall asleep at the wheel, it might be more negligent than reckless. As another example, it might be negligent if someone slips on ice on your property, but reckless if you purposefully froze the walkway for fun. Commented Aug 15 at 15:34
  • Yes, that makes sense. I guess I just was looking for something with a bit more of a connotation of "plausible deniability"
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 16 at 5:51
2

Your question is slightly ambiguous.

Could they have been genuinely ignorant?

with the connotation of that they should have known?

"should have known" implies that they might not have actually known, but we refuse to accept genuine ignorance as an excuse.

In this case, because genuine ignorance is still on the table, neglect(ful)/reckless(ness) best covers your scenario. The former refers to an active decision to not engage, the latter to a lack of care/awareness to even consider it.

I would favor referring to neglect when the person didn't do something they should have; and recklessness with the person did do something they shouldn't have.

...or was their alleged ignorance disingenuous?

As if someone were to close their eyes and drive into traffic, and then defend their actions in the event of a crash because they didn't know any cars were there.

That is not the same scenario. Here, genuine ignorance is off the table. They knew they were driving into an intersection, they knew they'd be held accountable for seeing other cars on the intersection, and they then wilfully acted in a way that evaded blame for the problematic behavior while knowingly and willfully still continuing the problematic behavior.

When genuine ignorance is off the table, and you are stating that you know for a fact that they had the necessary awareness at the time; then you're talking about willful ignorance/neglect/recklessness ("willful" being the key phrase here).

The distinction between willful ignorance, neglect and recklessness hinges on the part of the problematic behavior you want to focus on.

  • If your primary concern is that they're lying to you about what they knew, then it's willful ignorance.
  • If your primary concern is that they knowingly didn't do something, then it's willful neglect.
  • If your primary concern is that they knowingly did something, it's willful recklessness.

This distinction is very contextual and it's not clear from your question which part you're trying to stress.


Legal terminology

I feel like it may literally be a law term.

All of the provided terms have some kind of legal connotation, but I'm wondering if you're thinking of "consciousness of guilt"?

This refers to evidence that the person knew what they were doing and took specific actions to make themselves look innocent, actions which a genuinely oblivious person would not have taken. The existence of the unusual actions implies (and can be argued to prove) the existence of their awareness beforehand.

Closing your eyes as you enter an intersection is such an example. A person who ends up causing an unexpected accident would not close their eyes in order to cross an intersection, but a person who wants to evade blame would pre-emptively close their eyes so that they could be technically correct when they argue that they "did not see the other car".

The act of closing their eyes (or even just the claim that they did so) reasonably proves that they were aware that being on the lookout for other cars was their responsibility, but then acted in a way to try and avoid that responsibility.

1
  • 1
    This isn't exactly what I was thinking, as I don't think I did a good job communicating what I was thinking, but I think it's a great response to what I actually wrote. +1 from me. I would say my question is probably a bit more than just slightly ambiguous, and your assertion is probably generous :)
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 15 at 7:28
2

I see the accepted answer of "negligence", but I think this is incorrect. Negligent has a strong connotation towards "simple" recklessness or carelessness, which is even acknowledged in the question itself, where it specifically asks for the "and you should've known better" element. The term "deliberate indifference" seems like the best fit here to me.

A definition from USLegal:

Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. In law, the courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to determine if a professional has violated an inmate's civil rights. Deliberate indifference occurs when a professional knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health or safety. Even though it is difficult to identify what does and does not constitute deliberate indifference, courts have recognized several factual scenarios where deliberate indifference exists. For example, intentionally refusing to respond to an inmate's complaints has been acknowledged as constituting deliberate indifference.

While that definition discusses the context in the course of corrections law, the context (which is where I know it from), the same concept exists in other vocations where one owes a legal duty to others. For example, the concept of deliberate indifference also exists in education where it pertains to educators who become aware of allegations of sexual abuse, and fail to act despite know that they should do so under Title IX. I'd imagine similar concepts exist in healthcare and many other fields.

The TLDR of the situation as I've always understood it comes down to 3 points:

  1. You became aware of a situation/issue (e.g. an inmate's medical issue, a student being sexually abused, etc.)
  2. You know you have a responsibility to do something about it (e.g. contact medical staff, start a Title IX investigation, etc.)
  3. You did not do what you were supposed to do

While the concept is primarily a legal one to describe a particular flavor of "committed blatant disregard or neglect and you should've known better", the phrase is relatively straightforward in its meaning. As a result, I think it quite intuitively can be applied to other more mundane situations that don't necessarily raise to the level of a question of legal culpability.

2
  • I like this answer, but what I'm searching for can also be something that they did not know, but should have known, not something they did know, but didn't act on
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 16 at 5:48
  • @SamSabin Your question posited that the actor "should" know of a responsibility and failed to act accordingly. I think that's exactly what's covered here. Litigating deliberate indifference (legally or administratively) usually comes down to whether or not one reasonably should've known of their duty to act, and a defense of "I didn't know I had a duty" can be undermined by pointing to how prior training, statute, case law, etc. demonstrates that they should have known. Just because you fell asleep in Title IX class at School Administrator Training doesn't give you a free pass.
    – WJTownsend
    Commented Aug 20 at 23:22
1

I like the other answers. Alongside them I'd add contempt. This may be the legal term you have in mind, and encompasses some of the other good answers.

From google's Oxford Languages result:

  • disregard for something that should be taken into account.
    "this action displays an arrogant contempt for the wishes of the majority"
    Similar: disrespect, disregard, slighting, neglect, contumacy

And of course "contempt of court" (from Lexicon Learning)

  • willful disobedience or open disrespect of the orders, authority, or dignity of a court or judge acting in a judicial capacity, displayed by disruptive language or conduct or by failure to obey the court's orders;

One of your examples - "if someone were to close their eyes and drive into traffic", they would be showing contempt for traffic laws and other road users.

Contempt includes not knowing but should have known (a refusal to learn the relevant laws / procedures, especially if feeling such laws are beneath them), as well as knowing but not acting on that knowledge.


 
1

I personally use the term willfully ignorant.

EDIT: I just asked my Microsoft Copilot Pro. Enjoy,

Willful ignorance, also sometimes termed as willful blindness or intentional ignorance, is a concept that involves the deliberate avoidance of information that contradicts one's existing beliefs¹. It is built on the principle of intentionally ignoring evidence that doesn't align with one's preconceived notions¹. This can serve as a defense mechanism, allowing individuals to create a world they feel safe in, akin to confirmation bias¹.

In a legal context, willful ignorance is when a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping themselves unaware of facts that would render them liable or implicated². This concept is also applied to situations where people intentionally turn their attention away from an ethical problem that is believed to be important².

In everyday life, willful ignorance can manifest in various ways, from ignoring issues that make us feel uncomfortable to rejecting irrefutable evidence that doesn't match our worldview¹. While it can sometimes protect the brain and work as a defense mechanism, in extreme cases, it can lead us to take certain actions that can be harmful to ourselves or others¹. It can also prevent us from taking necessary actions that we should do but do not¹.

In summary, willful ignorance is a decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt³. It is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality⁴. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias and/or avoidance of cognitive dissonance⁴.

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/19/2024 (1) What Is Willful Ignorance & 5 Examples of How It Works. https://www.learning-mind.com/willful-ignorance-examples/. (2) Willful ignorance - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance. (3) willful ignorance - Wiktionary, the free dictionary. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance. (4) Willful ignorance - RationalWiki. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance.

5
  • This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
    – Greybeard
    Commented Aug 17 at 9:09
  • @Greybeard This is actually the exact phrase I was thinking of, as I mentioned to someone who used that phrase in one of the comments. I don't know why you would feel this is not an answer to my question.
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 18 at 20:49
  • @SamSabin You do not understand what is happening. "MaliciousNinja's answer is not an answer because it gives no explanation, meaning, and example of the claim that "wilfully ignorant" is appropriate. It is, however acceptable as a comment.
    – Greybeard
    Commented Aug 19 at 9:20
  • Thank you for bringing that to my attention! I forgot to add my source, context, and definition, although; I suppose context is dictated by the original question. Commented Aug 19 at 19:43
  • @Greybeard I understand, but it just seems a bit overly pedantic for an answer seeking an individual phrase or word. It makes sense to provide more context normally, but in this scenario it seemed already formatted to fit my question.
    – Sam Sabin
    Commented Aug 20 at 21:53
-1

It may be too soft and is not always meant as criticism, but nonchalant is at least in the ballpark of negligence or willful ignorance:

having an air of easy unconcern or indifference

One could walk nonchalantly into a dangerous situation.

-1

I apologize for giving a second separate answer, but I asked Microsoft Copilot Pro the original question. "What is a word/phrase that best describes a "blatant disregard or neglect" for something, but with the connotation of that they should have known?"

Copilot answer: The phrase "reckless disregard" could be used to describe a "blatant disregard or neglect" for something, with the connotation that the person should have known better¹. This term is often used in legal contexts to describe situations where someone has acted with a high degree of irresponsibility or indifference to an obvious risk¹.

Another term that might fit is "gross negligence". This is a severe lack of attention or care for the safety of others or for one's duties, which someone reasonably should have been aware of¹.

"Culpable disregard" is another term that implies a person has been willfully and unreasonably neglectful, despite knowing better².

These terms all carry a strong connotation of irresponsibility and neglect, and they imply that the person in question should have been aware of the consequences of their actions. They are often used in legal and formal contexts to describe serious instances of neglect or disregard¹².

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/19/2024 (1) 238 Words and Phrases for Blatant Disregard - Power Thesaurus. https://www.powerthesaurus.org/blatant_disregard/synonyms. (2) Thesaurus for Blatant disregard. https://www.powerthesaurus.org/blatant_disregard. (3) BLATANT DISREGARD collocation | meaning and examples of use. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/blatant-disregard.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.