Is it possible for a person to be morally neutral?

[Der/die AtheistIn]

I don't mean 100% neutral, but more neutral than good or bad. And if it is, does anyone know any real-life examples?

[Pat Mustard]

I don't mean 100% neutral, but more neutral than good or bad. And if it is, does anyone know any real-life examples?

All I know is, my gut says maybe.

[vorlon13]

Not sure this is where you're headed, but sometimes I just don't pick up on things.

At the time it was occurring, for instance, I didn't perceive a friends bad parenting as actual criminal child/vulnerable person abuse. As time has passed, I have really regretted non-action at the time. In that case the abuse was more acts of omission than commission, but even now, making excuses for my inaction makes me feel like an accessory to what was an ongoing criminal assault.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't mean 100% neutral, but more neutral than good or bad. And if it is, does anyone know any real-life examples?

If you viewed morality as a scale, with neutrality at the middle point and good or bad proceeding from either side in incremental or quantifiable units......then, for most of us, our lives would be in a state of flux over the that middle ground...and viewing morality in such a way all but ensures that, at least sometimes, all of us would be at the morally neutral point.  

-more an artifact of a hypothetical moral calculus than a statement regarding the sum of a human life, though, imo.

[Aoi Magi]

Morality itself is subjective, and varies from person to person, thus I don't think anyone can be perfectly neutral in an objective sense.

[chimp3]

Morality itself is subjective, and varies from person to person, thus I don't think anyone can be perfectly neutral in an objective sense.

During the transition from slavery to the Civil Rights Act some Americans preached "Gradualism". The idea that it would take a long time for whites to get used to the idea that they could not own black people and blacks were their equals. This Gradualism is a form of being morally neutral.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't mean 100% neutral, but more neutral than good or bad. And if it is, does anyone know any real-life examples?

I guess it depends on your definitions.

[vorlon13]

I'm guilty of the occasional bout of schadenfreude, too.

[Whateverist]

I think I am most comfortable living my life from a morally neutral position.  That means for me that I'm not always looking to move the moral needle.  We're free from the Great moral score keeper in the sky, and there is no reason to take up that task ourselves.  

That doesn't mean I'm for overturning the great moral lesson of our childhood - "don't be a jerk".  But if that really matters to us, we won't be.  There is no reason to go around in fear that your moral horribleness will break out at any moment unless you remain vigilant.  The other lesson we should have incorporated in childhood was "trust your self".

[Rev. Rye]

I don't mean 100% neutral, but more neutral than good or bad. And if it is, does anyone know any real-life examples?

In my own personal experience, I suspect that the vast majority of people are more neutral than good or bad; we seek neither to help others, but, as a rule, we'd prefer to not hurt them, either (or at least not do it ourselves) unless acted upon by an outside force. Working under this assumption tends to explain so much about social psychology that makes no sense when we assume people are simply good or evil.