Sure.
But what consitutes "knowledge"? If you replaced "knowledge" with "information" would it still hold the same ethical value?
You know, philosophical questions, which are raised by philosophical statements.
Also, not to nitpick, but it should read either "all forms of knowledge are inherently ethical" or "all knowledge is inherently ethical".
Yeah i realised after i typed it but i'm actually running a fever and have been for the past week, on and off, so...
from a historical perspective, knowlege production is bound with institutions, the production of knowlege takes time, energy effort personnel (increasingly with the ...ghmmm. ... .... especially with the modern laboratory, unlike in the middle ages), so the production of knowlege renders nothing strictly 'information', but rather subject to biases, institutional ineffieinciy , uhhhh what else, lots of other things. the creation of artefacts etc are also not strictly technological in that sense, because the creation of a certain artefact requries a certain objective in mind, and all of these are subject to ethical values etc.
it's also no coincidence that it is around the period of 1850s that the museum becomes a public phenomena, after the great exhibition in london. all of these phenomenons are linked to human activity; consumption of knowledge is thus linked to production of knowleged
ideally, 'information' could be separated, but in reality it isn't, because everything is a human endeavour and humans cannot fully be objective by any standards
also science is a shifting paradigm, as new information becomes available, that's the nature of knowledge.
an example would be the implication of greenhouse gases and their effects on the global climate. there's a reason industrialists want it to not be true. because there's a
moral component to it and there's a social obligation to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. i mean. sure. their 'studies' are probably 'information'. but it's being produced for a reason, to subvert moral and ethical obligations that would arise if the opposite was true. and people acting a certain way is definitely tied to the info they get (e.g. people associating fatness with overeating and laziness, when in fact it's easier to help obesity by tackling other problems, not by morally judging them, but the widely disseminated info is eating + not moving = fat) or choose to take in (sometimes because of cognitive dissonance. case example: tellen and sfp)
like if you examine the late 19-early 20th century discussion abt science, you will find lots of ethical implications resulting from a certain theory.
people don't just think in terms of one field, there could be a preference, sure, but all sorts of knowledge (and yes, information) always has a practical aspect to it. anything with practical aspects will require a mode of conduct, whether it is acceptable etc.
tl;dr ppl are complicated and information is never strictly information, but forms a part of human culture, and intake/output of information is subject to human biases for practical and moral reasons.