There's another kind of ignorance that pertains in some situations, that you do not have the control that you think you have. That is, the results that you think will happen are only speculative, or problematic. This is captured in the phrase many of us have thought or said on some occasion, "I thought I was doing the right thing." And the stronger case when you do not have control and know that you don't.

And bias, on close look and in a particular case, approaches irrelevancy - assuming people are trying to act in good will, and granted bias over many cases is very relevant.

Problem with #4: a person with perfect knowledge will not be biased - because he knows - and therefore must act in accordance with what he knows.

And I think you have to offer us for current purpose a careful definition of "dilemma." If you can self-excuse yourself from the dilemma, then you're not in one.

Recusal is a term of art at law. It really doesn't work with either ignorance or bias (although bias is a form of ignorance).

Bottom line, imo, is that a free agent may always choose. And having that freedom, he or she knowing that they are free, are in that freedom freed to do the best they can under their circumstance. And arguably are obliged to as a matter of duty.

The real problem, imo, is finding the right imperative by which to advise or even govern your decision. On those there is room or debate - at least until the right argument is found. I'm assuming the right argument will persuade all reasonable parties, and that it exists in all cases.

That is, the results that you think will happen are only speculative, or problematic. This is captured in the phrase many of us have thought or said on some occasion, "I thought I was doing the right thing." And the stronger case when you do not have control and know that you don't. — tim wood

These are epistemic conditions over which (a non-ignorant, pun intended?) individual has little "choice" over.

And bias, on close look and in a particular case, approaches irrelevancy - assuming people are trying to act in good will, and granted bias over many cases is very relevant. — tim wood

But, it is not. Bias is everywhere. Just look at my topic on prison populations. Rife with bias and some prejudice.

Problem with #4: a person with perfect knowledge will not be biased - because he knows - and therefore must act in accordance with what he knows. — tim wood

No, you misunderstand. Perfect knowledge is a term I borrowed from game theory pertaining to what you know about what others know ad infinitum. Omniscience doesn't have any bearing here. I had meant #4 to be in terms of what others would consider one biased, and it applies to everyone. Anyone who claims that they are not biased is excluded from the game.

And I think you have to offer us for current purpose a careful definition of "dilemma." If you can self-excuse yourself from the dilemma, then you're not in one. — tim wood

Not necessarily. As per the OP, recusal is still a choice, so any decision theory ethical dilemma must end in perfect closure with the choice to recuse oneself from making a decision. This is a very important point that many people don't realize or are never told when facing an ethical dilemma, which I suppose I'm trying to stipulate here. Which, BTW, I think is a cheat to say the least to not allow anyone to recuse themselves.

Recusal is a term of art at law. It really doesn't work with either ignorance or bias (although bias is a form of ignorance). — tim wood

That doesn't exclude it from being applied in ethical dilemmas of social good.

Bottom line, imo, is that a free agent may always choose. And having that freedom, he or she knowing that they are free, are in that freedom freed to do the best they can under their circumstance. And arguably are obliged to as a matter of duty. — tim wood

It's not a zero-sum game. Competence is a concept that arises here. The duty falls apart if the wrong person (one who doesn't apply the veil of ignorance) is fulfilling some duty.

The real problem, imo, is finding the right imperative by which to advise or even govern your decision. On those there is room or debate - at least until the right argument is found. I'm assuming the right argument will persuade all reasonable parties, and that it exists in all cases. — tim wood

Again, an epistemic concern. This is mitigated by appealing to authority, which is another issue entirely.

bump