Is it worse to know what should be done, and then decide not to do it? Or worse to not know in the first place?

I'm angry; I shouldn't hit my friend because it's wrong and will only make the situation worse for me and for everyone else, providing no benefits whatsoever; I hit my friend. I have committed malice aforethought. I'm sociopathic. I have no concern for the wellbeing of others.

I'm angry; I hit my friend. Oops. Sorry.

The former case is a half-step in the right direction ("I didn't hit my friend"), in that I'm capable of identifying the correct action to take. However, it may produce a greater emotional burden should I then fail to take the correct action. In this way, perhaps those who fail to make a full transition are hurting more than those who have not even started on the path.

I remember this being discussed earlier, where aspiring rationalists lose the support of some irrational beliefs which had been propping them up, providing quality of life benefits.