Statistics itself is essentially pre/post-theoretical analysis -- theory has to be added to statistics.
My use of "immoral" here is to sign-post that something is missing: an ethical theory.
I have seen esteemed people try to reduce (2) to (1) -- you may as well do so with scientific questions, ie., eliminate all of chemistry in favour of just "how often ice melts at a given temperature". We know, of course, that we do not even have data for the whole range of actually knowable states of water -- because we have theories which describe them. (And without theory, we'd not even know what data to have collected.)
Likewise, ethics is not a matter of outcomes being different whenever they are different. Ethics, like science, is a discrete constraint on theory-building -- not on data analysis.
I think this is kind of what we're talking about, though, isn't it? Does "prejudicial" mean "having preconceptions about a person based on a few observed characteristics"? Or does it mean "assuming things I think are unfair about a person"?
> My use of "immoral" here is to sign-post that something is missing: an ethical theory.
If that was the intent then it worked for me.
These days in the context of 'social bias' the word 'bias' seems to mean 'difference between what happens and what I think is fair'.