Facts Are Morally Neutral

Are facts morally neutral?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 73.3%

  • No

    Votes: 3 20.0%

  • Potato

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Reason

Reason

Percolated
MBTI
INTP
I believe that a fact is morally neutral

For example it is a fact that African Americans are more likely to be arrested- and that is morally neutral and i can prove it.

This could be because
A) Racists are right and they're just terrible people
OR
B) The police are unconciously biased and so because they are looking for black men to arrest they naturally arrest more of them
OR
C) The racist American system traps African Americans in a desperate situation where crime is simply the only reasonable avenue of escape, its not thier fault that they become criminals as they've never been given any choices

You see how many different arguments you can make from a true fact along different axis of the political spectrum? It seems to me that the information itself is morally neutral and that it is our opinions that taint information in our own minds.

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

EDIT: *True* facts i mean ;)
 
I'd say facts can have moral attributions depending on the situation, but I'd say they are morally neutral in and of themselves. The best example I can think of is medical information obtained through immoral means. Some can argue that to use that information will validate the means by which they were acquired, and so the facts are in a sense immoral. However, this is not due to the fact, but the way they were discovered.
 
I do think that facts are morally neutral. In fact, I think the only reason individuals find morally neutral facts morally wrong is because those facts happen to go against their personal morals, which are wrong.

yoda-shots.webp
 
hush said:
I do think that facts are morally neutral. In fact, I think the only reason individuals find morally neutral facts morally wrong is because those facts happen to go against their personal morals, which are wrong.

View attachment 41028
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, there are plenty of people that are against racism (which i think we all agree is good generally speaking) who would love to silence that little fact up at the top of this thread. It makes them uncomfortable so they want it gone, so they're right about the issue but also rejecting facts as being "bad" usually because it "encourages ______" "encourages racism" in this case would be what they say
 
I think most people can agree that "facts" are morally neutral.

However, "facts" are often not given in neutral or objective ways which gives these "facts" inferences and meanings beside just the material meaning.

As humans with prejudices and bias that we are aware of and many we are not, we "read" more into "facts" than just the raw data

The question is double edged and both answers can and are true
 
Nixie said:
However, "facts" are often not given in neutral or objective ways which gives these "facts" inferences and meanings beside just the material meaning.
Click to expand...
Well then its not the fact that is to blame, its a bad actor problem isn't it? That is to say that the fault lies with the speaker.
 
It's not about blame. It is a recognition of the human condition. Our internal flaw of the power of our unconscious and how blind we can be to our own biases and the "extra" we add to things without conscious thought.
 
Also there are interesting interpretations of facts. I remember somebody asked some silly thing like "what would happen if you could only turn left and couldn't do anything else?" Somebody answered that you would die because breathing isn't turning left.

I replied that you wouldn't die because dying isn't turning left either.
 
sprinkles said:
Also there are interesting interpretations of facts. I remember somebody asked some silly thing like "what would happen if you could only turn left and couldn't do anything else?" Somebody answered that you would die because breathing isn't turning left.

I replied that you wouldn't die because dying isn't turning left either.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Also, what if I go into the bathroom when somebody is at the door because I don't want to answer it, so that later if they ask me why I didn't come to the door, I can say I was in the bathroom and it technically isn't a lie?
 
sprinkles said:
Also, what if I go into the bathroom when somebody is at the door because I don't want to answer it, so that later if they ask me why I didn't come to the door, I can say I was in the bathroom and it technically isn't a lie?
Click to expand...
Well it is a fact that you were in the bathroom but by stating that without the added context that you were there because you wanted an excuse not to talk to them is an exercise in dissembling information.

Bad actor problem

EDIT: and the fact that you were in the bathroom is neutral in and of itself as is the fact of why you were in there
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
Well it is a fact that you were in the bathroom but by stating that without the added context that you were there because you wanted an excuse not to talk to them is an exercise in dissembling information.

Bad actor problem

EDIT: and the fact that you were in the bathroom is neutral in and of itself as is the fact of why you were in there
Click to expand...
Hume's guillotine?
 
sprinkles said:
Hume's guillotine?
Click to expand...
mistake.webp

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
 
Last edited:
@sprinkles what I meant is that in the incident itself you might not have acted with morally neutral intentions but the recognizing that such an incident occurred is not aligned with any kind of morality- the incident did occur regardless of what judgements we place upon it or upon the people who caused or contributed to its occurrence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top