There is no such thing as a neutral question

There is no such thing as a neutral question

            Knowledge as defined by Plato is a “justified, true belief.” Knowledge can also be defined as facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Taking both of these definitions into account, knowledge can be any claim that one can come up with, as long as one supports it with convincing evidence, and knowledge can be bias based on the place where one is raised. There is no way that a question can’t be neutral if knowledge itself is neutral. Two specific areas of knowledge that shape the character and personality of an individual are ethics and history. Ethics is the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles and determines what is right and what is wrong. History is the branch of knowledge that deals with past events, especially in connection with the human race. Ethics vary depending on the culture or group of people that one is addressing/depending on the society where one lives in, and history varies in perspective and content because of how bias it is and the almost endless evidence that can be found for one specific thing. These two areas of knowledge raise a lot of neutral questions because of the absence of decided views, expression and/or strong feelings.   

Plato developed the Law of Moral Neutrality in which he stated that “no definition of moral terms or analysis of moral reasoning shall favor one set of moral principles or ideals over another, nor one answer to a moral question over another.” By saying this, Plato is explaining how the definition of ethics must be neutral because no set of rules for what is right and what is wrong should favor a certain group or answer to a moral question, because there are so many different cultures around the world, that all answers about what is right and what is wrong, could be denied by a specific group. This is known by the term of moral-ethical neutrality, in which no answer to ethics is right but every answer is neutral. 

Culture can be defined as the outlook, attitudes, values, goals, and practices shared by a group, organization, or society. Each culture has their own cultural norms in which it is stated what should be seen as right and what should be seen as wrong. Franz Boas wrote the ethical theory of cultural relativism in which he explains how there is no singular truth on which to base ethical or moral behavior, because our interpretations of truths are influenced by our own culture. So, according to this theory, each person that belongs to a different culture will consider an event/action moral, based on their cultural religion, cultural views, and cultural ideals. Therefore, culture and ethics intersect because what is moral to a certain group could be considered as immoral by a group from a different culture. Ethics changes depending on the region and country where a person comes from and is raised. 

Out of ethics many neutral questions arise because people start questioning what should be considered right and what should be considered wrong. People in the United States, a very international country that is constantly intervening in the issues of other countries for example, want to define international ethical rules so that issues like terrorism stop. The problem is that ethics is so neutral that even people in the United States start to question their own “ethical code” if there is one. The United States is currently in the fight against Isis, Al Qaeda and all the terrorist groups around the world, but is it ethical that the United States itself has used terrorism? It has been confirmed by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John Brennan in a declaration to justify their actions that the so called “enhanced interrogation” has been used and it has been effective. “Enhanced interrogation” is the use of terrorist techniques in certain persons by the U.S. government to find relevant information. Brennan stated that: “Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom EITs were used, did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives.” This issue raised the question of terrorism being bad or good in this situation? According to some people it is right because as the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli stated “the ends justify the means.” In this case terrorist attacks were prevented and terrorism was reduced to save and assure the security of many people around the world. So, because this was for the good of the majority the supposed ethical code that the U.S. had was changed and the use of terrorist techniques were approved by most U.S. citizens. Therefore, ethics can change depending on the situation and even one’s own ethical code can be questioned when it comes to saving lives, making the ethics of terrorism and many others, neutral questions. 

On the other side, there is the theory of universalism supported by many philosophers from the time of Plato until the current time; this theory sets a universal ethical code for the world and gives answers to those who question something being right or wrong. The United Nations (U.N.) is an organization that supports this universalism theory and has universal rules. According to the U.N. in the Geneva Conventions agreement, the use of “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” (Article 3:1(a)) should be banned. So, according to the U.N. the U.S. government violated the law and they should be punished for it. In the article 5 of the U.N., in the universal declaration of human rights, it is stated that “No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” There are many organizations like the U.N. that have set a universal ethical code that applies to everybody and therefore there should not be any arousal of neutral questions in ethics.   

The word of history itself can be separated into two different words “his” and “story”. The word is self-explanatory in stating how history is written by a person who has seen the event that happened or has enough information to write about it. Winston Churchill once said that “history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”; he meant that history will agree with the historian as long as the historian makes it convincing enough for it to be accepted by others. History can be affected by the emotions of the historian and the reasoning of him/her as well. Historians have to be smart enough to understand the history so that they can transmit a clear message, but their history can be influenced by how they feel about certain event. For example, a soldier from the First World War from Germany would disagree in his story that Germany was the cause of the First World War, whereas a soldier of the U.S. from WW1 would state that Germany caused the war, this because during that time that was the view that each had of each other. 

In actuality, historians have an exhaustless reservoir of material about most people who lived on earth, and this leaves historians with no option than to choose a source that they are confident with and select content information for their books. History is chosen by a historian’s value system and the philosophy of life. All of these, make history biased because the person who writes it is inculcating his/her values in the information and might even change some information to make it more convincing. Due to how bias history is, many neutral questions arise from this area of knowledge such as the question of evolution. Since we were not alive when humans were created, we must imagine what really happened and how it happened. Charles Darwin explained evolution as an emergence of Homo sapiens out of a series of lower primate groups in which species fought for survival and then developed into the human race. On the other side, Buettner-Janush has defined evolution in actuality, as a change in genetic, morphological differentiation and a progressive diversification. He says that the changes are through mutation, adaptation and natural selection. Both theories are very credible but no one will ever know which theory is true and what is the definite answer to the race of human beings. Religions state that different gods or a certain god created everything in Earth and they created human beings as well and that is how we exist. We don’t know what really happened and we try to use our imagination to believe many of these historians but the question of our own existence still remains neutral. History consists of a value of neutral-facts. 

Many historians claim that there are definite answers to history and that it should not be questioned. Some give examples as the knowledge of the dates of the World Wars and the cause of these wars as well. There is no doubt of these dates and there is no doubt either that the Second World War was caused by the invasion of Germany into Poland. These events have been proven by testimonies given from former soldiers, by video recordings and many other methods. The evidence is there and is clear and therefore history has definite answers in certain topics. 

In conclusion, both ways of knowledge, history and ethics, are influenced by one’s emotion, reason and imagination and raise a lot of neutral questions because knowledge itself is neutral. Knowledge of a certain culture has been questioned by another culture and this will always be the same way because no one is willing to give up their own culture to form a universal culture with a universal history and ethical code. History and ethics vary from place to place and from culture to culture.