Which is more dangerous: ignorance or apathy?

Question

Which is more dangerous: ignorance or apathy?

Answer 1

They are equally dangerous.  

The Apathy Side of the Argument:

Apathy, because you can easily tell an ignorant person what is going on.  It isn't so easy to change someone's mind, because it requires the use of opinions that probably aren't true in place of the facts.

The Ignorance Side of the Argument:

Ignorance, because you can easily change the mind of an apathetic person in a single conversation.  It isn't so easy to tell someone the facts of the matter, because they might not be willing to listen in the first place.

Answer 2

In my opinion, ignorence is way worse. ignorance causes racism and divides us apart.

Answer 3

It would depend on the circumstances. Apathy is the idea that you don't do anything to change your circumstances. That might not be dangerous if your circumstances are simply putting up with a boring life instead of trying to make it a better life. However, apathy could be dangerous if you don't change your smoking habit when you know it's killing you.

On the other hand, ignorance can go either way. If you're ignorant about the voting topics, you're not going to make wise choices on your ballot, but chances are it won't kill you. If you're in the wild and you're ignorant about which mushrooms are safe to eat and you go ahead and eat anything you find, you could kill yourself. Of course this brings up the idea of stupidity.

If you're ignorant of something and there is potential for it to kill you, you should avoid it, but if you're ignorant to the point where you don't even know if could kill you if you make the wrong choice, you're in serious trouble. If you're apathetic about something that could kill you, you have no one to blame but yourself. It's not dangerous, just stupid.

Therefore, I vote for Ignorance to be more dangerous. At least if you have the facts you can avoid death if you choose to.

Answer 4

I say ignorance, but it's just because I don't really care.

Answer 5

Personally, I think ignorance can be excusable in some cases.  If you weren't taught or ever exposed to something, how would you ever know?  Apathy on the other hand is probably not as excusable, because you have knowledge of something, yet you refuse to act.  So I would have to say apathy is clearly more dangerous.

Answer 6

Apathy.

Ignorance can be "fixed", but apathy can only be erased with the will power of the apathetic person.

Answer 7

Apathy, in my opinion. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". If I am ignorant of a dangerous situation, then my education of it will solve the problem. But if I'm apathetic about a dangerous situation then no amount of education will help me.

<insert obvious absence of old joke here>

Answer 8

ignorance

Answer 9

Apathy.

Answer 10

Ignorance is more dangerous because the ignorant has the capability to do far more damage.

Those who are apathetic usually don't significantly contribute to or harm society.

However, ignorance is easier to 'cure' than apathy (if ignorance doesn't come with close minded arrogance).

Answer 11

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing and that's what i am doing it right now! DO nothing! hee hee Dogs are EVIL! Wow!

Answer 12

Apathy is much more dangerous, because it will result in recklessness and cruelty to other life forms, moreover it is very hard to cure.

Ignorance, while being unavoidable and usually not beneficial, can be decreased if one put one's effort into learning encyclopedic knowledge and improving one's ethics.

Answer 13

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing! COOL! no wonder SG doggies alway provoke 2 to be bad but failed all the times. IMAO! lol! 2 is beyond your doggies' outsmart oredi! lol...hee hee... wah wahhhh

wondering what will happen if 2 become the same characteristics of those doggies.... hee hee....>wow beyond my imagination.