 In what sense does Ockham depart from the tradition? For Ockham, the act of following an invincibly erroneous conscience is not merely excusable, as it was For Aquinas, but “virtuous and meritorious”. Consider the following example from Ockham. While walking down the street one day you pass a homeless person who asks you for money. He appears to have a moral claim on you since you assent to the moral principle that “help is to be given to every needy person in extreme need lest he die”. Does he appear needy, and indeed desperate to you? Yes. Sizing him up, you determine that, although it is theoretically possible that he could be fraud, this seems unlikely. For Ockham, you are obliged in this instance to follow your conscience, and indeed you do. It turns out, however, that this apparent homeless person is in fact a very wealthy person who is impersonating a beggar. For Ockham, in following your conscience, you are not merely excused or absolved of your error, but your (ignorant) act is virtuous and, indeed, regarded by God as meritorious (so long, that is, that your act of charity is done out of love for God). As Ockham puts it: