Facts Are Morally Neutral

[Elis]

These are called "Semla" in Sweden, we eat them during "fettisdagen" (Fatty Tuesday). I just had 8 of these a few days ago, and that's a fact.

Now I could lie about that, or I could even be wrong about it. But judging from my 4 2-pack boxes still stashed in my room I'd care to say that I'm not.

We can scrutinize all we want around the meaning of the word fact, but I'd care to say that at some point were losing the purpose of the word. It is important to understand that we can be wrong in our assumptions, but without assumptions we can't deduct just about anything and where does that leave us?

I say for any practical purpose a fact is something that is either true or not true, and to talk about alternate facts is just nonsense.

To answer OP I agree with what some others have already said - There is no agenda or moral to facts. Now, why someone would bring up these facts, or even research them to begin with, that could be annotated an agenda.

 

[Wyote]

These are called "Semla" in Sweden, we eat them during "fettisdagen" (Fatty Tuesday). I just had 8 of these a few days ago, and that's a fact.

Now, why someone would bring up these facts, or even research them to begin with, that could be annotated an agenda.

I approve of your agenda

 

[charlatan]

Uhhh if you're scared of Ren showing up philosophizing this, I'm also probably not welcome.

But anyway, I wanted to do it anyway -- if moral truths exist, and if by 'facts' we mean objective truths, then of course facts are not morally neutral -- some facts in that case would be morally neutral.

Some use 'facts' to denote objective truths which are 'brute' truths. Ie scientific truths vs mathematical facts might be 'brute' truths, like who knows whether the universe had to have the special theory of relativity as part of it.

In this case, one I guess could argue moral truths may be closer to necessary ones like mathematical truths, since IF moral truths exist, perhaps they are more "by definition" -- and can be applied to situations with brute facts.

 

[James]

I believe that a fact is morally neutral

The facts are neutral, but often the interpretation of them isn't. All of us can have a tendency, either consciously or sub consciously, to use them to support our personal philosophy.

I have a feeling we may eventually find, a lot or all, of what we once thought of as "facts" are not what we believed. They were just fragments of a much bigger picture.

 

[dogman6126]

*swoon*

My own two cents: a FACT is something that is indisputably the case. Indisputable is something that cannot be argued.

How someone gets to the facts can be questionable, immoral, etc... but those things do not change the truth.

That is all.

I'd say you can dispute facts when you have limited epistemic access....which is like always. But my little comment here is irrelevant to this topic....I just wanted to be a little annoying/picky ^_^ lol

Well, since everyone is agreeing about the moral neutrality of facts, let’s try to shake things up a bit.

I think it may depend on what we mean by “fact”. On the one hand there is the state of affairs obtaining in the world, and on the other there is the proposition representing the state of affairs.

Let’s use the example of the practice of mass rape of the Yazidi population by ISIS fighters in Iraq. If you say “The ISIS fighters practice mass rape among the Yazidis”, this is a fact formulated as a proposition and I do agree that it is morally neutral. We can say that it is true, not false. But it would be nonsense to say “this proposition is evil”. So the proposition exists outside of the perimeter of moral valuation. It’s either true or not true. There is no moral value inhering in the statement itself.

But if by “fact” we understand not the true proposition depicting a state of affairs, but the state of affairs itself, maybe then there is a way to instill some morality into facts. I think that for a moral realist, the fact that ISIS fighters practice mass rape among the Yazidis is evil. It is by essence a morally condemnable state of affairs. Of course this requires committing to the view that morality is objective and that reality is not conditioned by our perception and judgements of it, but instead can be accessed without mediation. It’s not my view but a realist/moral realist might defend it along similar lines.

Long story short, I’m not sure an objective morality can ground its valuation in the mere perception and interpretation of facts. It has somehow to come to regard facts themselves as susceptible to being brought directly to its tribunal. On this view some facts can be both objectively true and objectively wrong/evil.

But since I am not a moral realist, I pretty much agree with the OP statement

I don't think it makes sense to talk about facts as the state of affairs itself. That's just the state of affairs. The only uses of fact I can think of here are either as a property meaning truth, or as a proposition of a state of affairs. Neither case gets us to the ontological grounding needed for this line of reasoning.
Also, a note about the part I bolded. I think you only need to be an objectivist about morality to get this point running, and that's not such an unusual position. The way out is to deny the nature of facts you're trying to push ^_^

Spoiler

To clarify, the moral realist vs. anti-realist is a disagreement about the ontological dependence of morality on minds (whether or not it exists independently of minds). The moral relativist vs objectivist is a disagreement about the formative dependence of morality on minds (morality is generated either by only mental perceivings rather than on features of the external world). The moral contextualist vs invariantist is a disagreement about the sensitivity of moral conclusions given situational variations.

 

[dogman6126]

That reminds me, as soon as @Ren shows up i'm bailing... All I wanted to do is talk about how some people listen too much to their emotions and let themselves reject facts- not parse the definitions of words and concepts with a fine tooth comb.

EDIT: No offense Ren

Hmmm....just realized I forgot to address this comment. Wanted to say, I think you meant this to sound different than it did...nonetheless, I'd recommend against singling out a person when you want to point out how you want to focus the discussion of this thread.

However, I'm confused how you want this to go then. In your original post:

Do you agree that facts are morally neutral in and of themselves?

That is a highly philosophical question, and very dependent on definitions...yet you say you don't want to focus on that. Rather you want to talk about the emotional bias of human minds on rationally driven moral judgments...a psychological question. If your question is only about how people have emotionally driven biases to rational reasoning in moral situations, there's plenty of interesting literature in moral psych about in-group and out-group effects, emotionality, empathy, and its like. Do you have a particular question in mind?

 

[Ren]

Uhhh if you're scared of Ren showing up philosophizing this, I'm also probably not welcome.

But anyway, I wanted to do it anyway -- if moral truths exist, and if by 'facts' we mean objective truths, then of course facts are not morally neutral -- some facts in that case would be morally neutral.

Some use 'facts' to denote objective truths which are 'brute' truths. Ie scientific truths vs mathematical facts might be 'brute' truths, like who knows whether the universe had to have the special theory of relativity as part of it.

In this case, one I guess could argue moral truths may be closer to necessary ones like mathematical truths, since IF moral truths exist, perhaps they are more "by definition" -- and can be applied to situations with brute facts.

This is very close to my position, but I think you expressed it in a clearer and more self-consistent way.

Hmmm....just realized I forgot to address this comment. Wanted to say, I think you meant this to sound different than it did...nonetheless, I'd recommend against singling out a person when you want to point out how you want to focus the discussion of this thread.

Thanks for this @dogman6126 - I appreciate it. Knowing Reason, I don't think he meant it as a personal attack and so I didn't take it personally. In any case, insofar as this thread is posted in the Philosophy section it must by definition be accepting of conceptual refinement, so I wouldn't have hesitated one second about posting

I don't think it makes sense to talk about facts as the state of affairs itself. That's just the state of affairs. The only uses of fact I can think of here are either as a property meaning truth, or as a proposition of a state of affairs. Neither case gets us to the ontological grounding needed for this line of reasoning.
Also, a note about the part I bolded. I think you only need to be an objectivist about morality to get this point running, and that's not such an unusual position. The way out is to deny the nature of facts you're trying to push ^_^

Spoiler

To clarify, the moral realist vs. anti-realist is a disagreement about the ontological dependence of morality on minds (whether or not it exists independently of minds). The moral relativist vs objectivist is a disagreement about the formative dependence of morality on minds (morality is generated either by only mental perceivings rather than on features of the external world). The moral contextualist vs invariantist is a disagreement about the sensitivity of moral conclusions given situational variations.

Great point, and very instructive clarification of the distinction (in particular) between moral realism and moral objectivism. I like where this is going - because I am learning things, and refining my own understanding in the process. This is what I'm always hoping for whenever I discuss philosophy. About your main point: let me think and get back to you when I have mulled this over enough to have a worthy response to contribute. I think there is still more to be discussed.

 

[dogman6126]

Thanks for this @dogman6126 - I appreciate it. Knowing Reason, I don't think he meant it as a personal attack and so I didn't take it personally. In any case, insofar as this thread is posted in the Philosophy section it must by definition be accepting of conceptual refinement, so I wouldn't have hesitated one second about posting



Great point, and very instructive clarification of the distinction (in particular) between moral realism and moral objectivism. I like where this is going - because I am learning things, and refining my own understanding in the process. This is what I'm always hoping for whenever I discuss philosophy. About your main point: let me think and get back to you when I have mulled this over enough to have a worthy response to contribute. I think there is still more to be discussed.

Yeah, I don't think so either, but I stand by my recommendation. No harm done, but it does make things awkward when names are tossed around :/

Haha, thanks! I still struggle with the distinction, but this is the best short hand I could give :/. There's definitely still some inaccuracy in the way I described the relativist vs. objectivist and the contextualist vs. invariantist. Even those studying the field get this wrong, mostly because there isn't really a formal definition for objectivity, and it changes meaning across domains. It's even worse when you through in the term subjectivity, which is often meant as a mix of any of anti-realist, relativist, and contextualist. Usually it's supposed to mean relativist, but I've heard it used for all three.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[Reason]

So I only just now realized that this thread is not in the history and culture subforum... And also I guess it really should really be under news and politics maybe? Lol I was getting so frustrated by everyone's responses... I'm an idiot. When I'm not at work I'll try to fix my mistake.

 

[Reason]

I am sorry for calling @Ren out, I guess jokes don't really read correctly over the internet sometimes.

 

[charlatan]

Lol, I didn't think you were trying to be offensive to Ren, Reason. I figured it was a good-humored comment that just said "hey, you know what I'm trying to say, I want to see if you agree with what I'm trying to say, not just figure out if there are better ways of arranging the definitions/expressing the point when striving for Ultimate philosophical correctness."

 

[charlatan]

BTW, even philosophers are fine doing this sort of thing. For instance, Quine would be fine using the word "meaning" and answering a question in the intended way, even if he was critical of the idea when it came down to ultimate correctness.

 

[Reason]

That is a highly philosophical question, and very dependent on definitions...yet you say you don't want to focus on that. Rather you want to talk about the emotional bias of human minds on rationally driven moral judgments...a psychological question. If your question is only about how people have emotionally driven biases to rational reasoning in moral situations, there's plenty of interesting literature in moral psych about in-group and out-group effects, emotionality, empathy, and its like. Do you have a particular question in mind?

Hopefully I can clarify with another example, sorry its going to be racial again but I just feel like this is the best example of this phenomenon. In the wake of a lot political correctness gone haywire recently I was reminded of a story several years ago of people pushing to get the topic of slavery completely purged from the American school history books.

Their argument is unique in my mind as it was not about any of the considerations raised in this thread such as bias on the part of the people publishing textbooks or the nature of reality or even the veracity of the information. The information itself was deemed racist as a topic, not a part of it nor a point of view presented within nor the precise words used. The subject itself was considered to be taboo. Now obviously this group failed but recently Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird were pulled for a specific reason- the harsh racial language presented within. It didn't matter that the subject matter of these books is the antithesis of the intention to sow racial discord the words- specifically the use of one word in particular was the problem. It brought me back to conversations with politically correct people who bawked at the example in my OP as well as reminded me of the attempt to purge slavery from the history books to save feelings.

I was wondering if there was anyone on this forum who believed in banning specific ideas and topics in and of themselves regardless of the message and how they're presented and even if they're presented in support of something the censor would actually agree with. Indeed I was wondering if there is an argument that an accepted fact, piece of data, or truth is somehow moral or immoral based solely on whether or not it fits a particular view.

 

[Reason]

@Wyote I don't know what subforum this thread belongs in but my putting it in philosophy has apparently caused some confusion about what i'm asking so- can you move it to either culture and history or news and politics or wherever you think it belongs? I'm having difficultly categorizing it and would be happy with any subforum outside of philosophy as the philosophy subforum seems to be the cause of the misunderstanding.

EDIT: Thank you friend

 

[dogman6126]

Hopefully I can clarify with another example, sorry its going to be racial again but I just feel like this is the best example of this phenomenon. In the wake of a lot political correctness gone haywire recently I was reminded of a story several years ago of people pushing to get the topic of slavery completely purged from the American school history books.

Their argument is unique in my mind as it was not about any of the considerations raised in this thread such as bias on the part of the people publishing textbooks or the nature of reality or even the veracity of the information. The information itself was deemed racist as a topic, not a part of it nor a point of view presented within nor the precise words used. The subject itself was considered to be taboo. Now obviously this group failed but recently Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird were pulled for a specific reason- the harsh racial language presented within. It didn't matter that the subject matter of these books is the antithesis of the intention to sow racial discord the words- specifically the use of one word in particular was the problem. It brought me back to conversations with politically correct people who bawked at the example in my OP as well as reminded me of the attempt to purge slavery from the history books to save feelings.

I was wondering if there was anyone on this forum who believed in banning specific ideas and topics in and of themselves regardless of the message and how they're presented and even if they're presented in support of something the censor would actually agree with. Indeed I was wondering if there is an argument that an accepted fact, piece of data, or truth is somehow moral or immoral based solely on whether or not it fits a particular view.

I don't think the justification for banning that material is that the fact itself is unethical. Rather, the topic, as it interacts in discussion and education, is unethical. For example, people might get insulted by the material, driven to some negative self images by the material, or, in the worst case arguments, a reader is led to agree by exposure. So I think that this argument suggests the fact itself isn't immoral, rather it's impact on society is. Now, I agree that there is a morally negative impact some things like this have on society, but it takes a lot of convincing to make me think something of that material should be banned from a societal perspective. I feel like most the time society naturally selects out these sorts of material, and to take an official government control stance to ban this material is negative in its own right. But IDK, I don't really engage in this area as much, so I can't defend my argument much better than this, sorry :/

 

[Ren]

BTW, even philosophers are fine doing this sort of thing. For instance, Quine would be fine using the word "meaning" and answering a question in the intended way, even if he was critical of the idea when it came down to ultimate correctness.

I agree. Interesting example about Quine. I'm pretty sure Bertrand Russell would have been on the same page.

Haha, thanks! I still struggle with the distinction, but this is the best short hand I could give :/. There's definitely still some inaccuracy in the way I described the relativist vs. objectivist and the contextualist vs. invariantist. Even those studying the field get this wrong, mostly because there isn't really a formal definition for objectivity, and it changes meaning across domains. It's even worse when you through in the term subjectivity, which is often meant as a mix of any of anti-realist, relativist, and contextualist. Usually it's supposed to mean relativist, but I've heard it used for all three.

Ok, so back to topic

On your definition of moral objectivism, would you say that – sorry to always go so far back in time, as an INFJ I am an old soul – Kant qualifies as a moral objectivist? He built his deontic moral law on the argument that the propositions of morality are true a priori (which, prima facie, would seem to make him a moral objectivist) and therefore, under the definition which @charlatan gives above, qualify as facts. But then, if in the Kantian system the propositions of morality qualify as facts – that is, as propositions endowed with truth – does it not follow that for Kant, not all facts are morally neutral? It was not entirely clear to me from your previous message whether you agreed or disagreed that with moral objectivism comes the view that some facts are not morally neutral.

Regarding the conflating of facts with states of affairs, I think who I really had in mind was the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus - the "logical atomist" Wittgenstein. It seems to me that the latter does equate facts with states of affairs, and propositions with the expression of the logical picture that we have of facts as states of affairs: "The world divides into facts ... The totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case ... We make to ourselves pictures of facts." Still I must agree that this understanding of "fact", now that I've had time to reflect a little bit, cannot be given a moral attribution. It's just a combination of objects. The moral attribution still has to attach to the proposition as the expression of the picture. But I am really interested to know in what way, for the ethical naturalist, the non-moral or morally neutral features of the particular "fact" being pictured (as a given combination of objects) supervene on the moral features of the proposition which expresses the picture. But maybe I am not making sense and we are far gone from the original OP statement at this point.

 

[wolly.green]

No. Some facts are not morally neutral. Some facts are, themselves, morals.

 

[just me]

Fact: A man should love his wife. Good morals

 

[Tin Man]

I looked at the title of this thread, and immediately thought that this is such an INTP thing to say.

And what a surprise, it was an INTP who said it

 

[Reason]

I looked at the title of this thread, and immediately thought that this is such an reasonable thing to say.

And what a surprise, it was Reason who said it