The Futility of Facts Against Moral Superiority
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance
I belong to a group called YPOW (Young Professionals of Woodstock). Every time we meet, we each answer a question publicly. One week, our question was “who would you want to have a beer or coffee with from the past or present, dead or alive?” My answer was Thomas Sowell. For me, he is one of the best known, or least known, great thinkers of the last 100 years. This post is focused on one of his many great quotes.
Thomas Sowell, a renowned economist, said…
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
This quote captures a profound truth about human nature: when people are entrenched in a belief that grants them the belief that they stand on the moral high ground, facts and reason often fall on deaf ears. This phenomenon is not just an abstract concept but a recurring pattern in debates, social movements, and everyday interactions.
Here are some real-world examples that illustrate why Sowell’s observation rings true:
Example 1: The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Advocates
During the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in 2020-2021, advocates for mandatory vaccine use—public health officials, policymakers, and vocal supporters—positioned vaccines as the ultimate moral imperative to end the pandemic. They framed compliance as a selfless act of protecting the vulnerable, casting those who questioned or opposed mandates as irresponsible or dangerous. This group’s sense of moral superiority, rooted in their belief that they were safeguarding society, often led them to dismiss dissenting voices, embodying Sowell’s observation that facts and analysis struggle against self-righteous ignorance.
Vaccine skeptics (I was and am still am among this group), often labeled "anti-vaxxers," raised concerns about rushed development, potential side effects, and the ethics of mandates. These critiques were frequently met with scorn, as pro-vaccine advocates pointed to early data showing vaccines reduced severe outcomes by up to 90% and lowered hospitalization rates in vaccinated populations. However, recent studies have validated skeptics’ concerns, exposing cracks in the narrative of unquestionable vaccine necessity.
A 2023 “The Lancet” article revealed that vaccine efficacy against transmission waned significantly with newer variants, undermining the argument that mandates were essential to stop the virus’s spread. A 2024 “Nature” study confirmed rare but serious side effects, such as myocarditis in young males, lending credence to early warnings about underreported risks. Additionally, a 2024 *PMC* article highlighted how inconsistent public health messaging—such as shifting booster guidance and reluctance to acknowledge natural immunity—fueled distrust, validating skeptics’ calls for transparency. These findings suggest that some objections to mandatory vaccine policies were grounded in legitimate concerns, not mere ignorance.
Yet, during the height of the vaccine push, mandate advocates often refused to engage with these critiques. On many forums, public questioning the one-size-fits-all approach were censored or branded as misinformation spreaders, even when their concerns later proved prescient. The pro-vaccine group’s moral conviction—that they were on the side of science and public good—blinded them to evolving evidence, such as 2022 studies showing limited vaccine impact on transmission. This illustrates Sowell’s point: their sense of moral superiority made them impervious to facts that challenged their stance, rendering reasoned debate futile.
Example 2: Economic Policy and the Minimum Wage Debate
Economic policy debates often highlight Sowell’s point, particularly around issues like the minimum wage. Proponents of raising the minimum wage frame it as a moral imperative to ensure a "living wage" for workers, arguing that it’s inherently unjust for corporations to pay low wages while earning profits. This position carries a strong sense of moral righteousness, as advocates see themselves as champions of the working poor, fighting against greed and inequality.
However, economists like Sowell have long emphasized the unintended consequences of minimum wage hikes. A 2017 University of Washington study found that Seattle’s minimum wage increase to $15 per hour led to a reduction in hours worked by low-wage employees, resulting in a net loss of income for many. Further context from my blog post from 2023 underscores these complexities.
Minimum wage increases can exacerbate inflation, as businesses raise prices to offset higher labor costs, disproportionately harming low-income consumers who rely on affordable goods and services. For example, fast-food chains like McDonald’s reported price hikes of up to 10% in response to wage mandates, negating some of the intended benefits for workers. It also impacts small businesses, which often lack the profit margins of large corporations. In California, a 2024 mandate raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 per hour led to an estimated 10,000 job cuts in the sector, as smaller franchises couldn’t absorb the cost. Additionally, minimum wage hikes can reduce job opportunities for young and low-skill workers, as employers opt for automation or hire more experienced candidates. A 2019 CBO report estimated that a $15 federal minimum wage could eliminate 1.3 million jobs by 2025, illustrating the trade-offs.
Despite this evidence, many minimum wage advocates dismiss such findings as cold-hearted or irrelevant, clinging to the moral narrative that higher wages equal justice. The emotional satisfaction of "fighting for the little guy" overshadows data-driven arguments, making productive dialogue nearly impossible. Sowell’s insight rings true here: the moral superiority of advocates blinds them to the economic realities that could undermine their well-intentioned goals.
Why Moral Superiority Trumps Facts
Sowell’s quote resonates because it reflects a psychological reality: people derive identity and purpose from their beliefs, especially when those beliefs cast them as morally superior. Admitting doubt or engaging with contradictory evidence risks dismantling that identity, which is far more uncomfortable than ignoring facts. This is compounded by confirmation bias, where individuals seek out information that reinforces their worldview while dismissing anything that challenges it.
Moreover, moral superiority is self-reinforcing especially in the “maddening of crowds.” In group settings—whether online echo chambers or real-world movements—publicly aligning with a "righteous" cause earns social capital. Backing down or acknowledging complexity can lead to ostracism or loss of status, further entrenching resistance to facts.
My unCommon Sense
While Sowell’s observation may seem pessimistic, it’s not a call to abandon reason altogether - unless the person with the perceived moral high ground is unwilling to engage with facts. Instead, it suggests a need for strategic communication. To pierce the armor of moral superiority, one must first acknowledge the emotional and moral motivations behind a person’s stance. Building trust and framing facts in a way that aligns with their values can sometimes open the door to dialogue. However, there are limits—some are too invested in their ignorance to budge, no matter the approach.
Thomas Sowell’s insight is a sobering reminder of the challenges in bridging divides in a polarized world. From the COVID-19 vaccine mandate debates to economic policy disputes to social media pile-ons (cancel culture), we see time and again how the allure of moral superiority can render facts and analysis irrelevant. While it’s tempting to double down on data in the face of ignorance, wisdom urges us to recognize the emotional and psychological barriers at play. Only by understanding these dynamics can we hope to foster more constructive conversations—or at least know when to walk away from a futile debate with someone that is unable to live in reality.
If you want to chat about your thoughts on this topic, please send me an email dan@thrailkill.us or drop me a message using the button below. I am always up to meet for coffee, a beer, or a constructive virtual conversation.
Have a good one,
Dan