Ethics of Neutrality

[John 6IX Breezy]

There are several members that are more knowledgeable about philosophy and ethics than me. So, I would like to see a discussion on the merits and faults of neutrality. This conversation obviously takes place in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I would like arguments to be applicable to other conflicts. 

To get the ball rolling, here are some rough ideas I've been thinking about:

1. Peace is neutral. Therefore, if one is interested in reestablishing peace during a conflict, it must be done from a position of neutrality.

2. Neutrality isn't indifference. Contrary to the idea that "to be neutral is to side with the oppressor," neutrality gives you the time and resources to focus on humanitarian efforts rather than in conflict. It also prevents you from only caring about tragedy and wrongdoing when it is on one side of the aisle.

3. Neutrality prevents escalation. Conflicts are flames which require fueling (e.g. money, resources, manpower), therefore, to take a side is to prolong a conflict, which directly or indirectly contributes to death and tragedy on all sides. In other words, taking a side also harms the side you have taken.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are several members that are more knowledgeable about philosophy and ethics than me. So, I would like to see a discussion on the merits and faults of neutrality. This conversation obviously takes place in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I would like arguments to be applicable to other conflicts. 

To get the ball rolling, here are some rough ideas I've been thinking about:

1. Peace is neutral. Therefore, if one is interested in reestablishing peace during a conflict, it must be done from a position of neutrality.

OR being victorious.

2. Neutrality isn't indifference. Contrary to the idea that "to be neutral is to side with the oppressor," neutrality gives you the time and resources to focus on humanitarian efforts rather than in conflict. It also prevents you from only caring about tragedy and wrongdoing when it is on one side of the aisle.

We were officially neutral before Pearl Harbor. Didn't help.

3. Neutrality prevents escalation. Conflicts are flames which require fueling (e.g. money, resources, manpower), therefore, to take a side is to prolong a conflict, which directly or indirectly contributes to death and tragedy on all sides. In other words, taking a side also harms the side you have taken.

Again, Pearl Harbor. We took a side after that and won the war for our side.

History is no where near as simple as you think.

[no one]

As long as people are dicks, peace will be unattainable.

Peace on earth and humanity, cannot coexist.

[Anomalocaris]

If two camps are engaged in a struggle that could lead to serious change in the balance of power between them. Then, arguably, it is impossible for a third major power with economic and geopolitical interests affecting either or both of the camps, and the potential to develop the capability to project power to near the scene of the conflict, to be neutral . At best, it could pretend to be neutral by avoiding actions which may legalistically be considered an acts of war against one or the other camp.  United States most absolutely was not neutral before pro Harbor. and was an active combatant in all but name against both Germany and Japan.

A power that is technically not at war, but does everything again to help the military cause of one side and hinder the military cause of another is an absolutely no way neutral

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

On point #2:

Under The Hague Convention, neutral nations are actually required to be indifferent. The only humanitarian aid they can legally offer is to allow the sick and wounded to cross their territory (cross, not remain). In practical terms, even this is next to impossible, since the transports aren’t allow to have any military members of the belligerent parties.

On the broader question, the ethics of taking a neutral stance would largely have to be determined by the nature of the individual conflict. It would be unethical for the West to stand idly by and let Russia take over Eastern Europe, while a neutral stance on some purely internal conflicts would seem to be ethically justified.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If two camps are engaged in a struggle that could lead to serious change in the balance of power between them. Then, arguably, it is impossible for a third major power whiz economic interests affecting either or both of the camps, and the potential to develop the capability to project power to near the scene of the conflict, to be neutral . Best, it could pretend to be neutral by avoiding actions which may legalistically be considered an active war against one or the other camp.  United States most absolutely was not neutral before pro Harbor. And there was a combat in Auburn name against both Germany and Japan.

A power that is technically not at war, but does everything again to help the military cause of one side and hinder the military cause of another is an absolutely no way neutral

The US recognized that the Axis was our enemy, either real soon, to their disadvantage, or later, when our potential allies are defeated. I don't see this as a hard choice. The best illustrations of our choice were "shoot on sight" (anti-Uboat patrolling) and putting the engaged Allied countries ahead of Japan with regard to fuel and munitions production (we send 100,000 rifles to England before Pearl Harbor.)

[Anomalocaris]

didn’t say it was a hard choice.

Just said such a choice could hardly be seen as befitting a neutral player.. Especially by side that we under the thin and risibly unconvincing cover of neutrality seek to hamper on diplomatic, economic, and outright military fronts by all peaks we can bring to bear for the benefit of their enemies

[Gawdzilla Sama]

didn’t say it was a hard choice.

Just said such a choice could hardly be seen as befitting a neutral player.. Especially by side that we under the thin and risibly unconvincing cover of neutrality seek to hamper on diplomatic, economic, and outright military fronts by all peaks we can bring to bear for the benefit of their enemies

There was no reason for us to be neutral. The Japanese were killing endless numbers of Chinese. The Italians were using poison gas in Africa. Dachau was not a summer camp.

A country doesn't have the luxury of being neutral if it wishes to determine its own future with any certainty. If the Axis had been victorious because we failed to act Mexico might have faced the choices of fighting the Germans and Japanese or allowing them to land troops to attack the US heartland. I doubt the Axis would have left our neighbor to the south when they were allowed in.

[Angrboda]

Wut.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I want to clarify that I'm referring more to a personal philosophy of neutrality rather than a national one. It may be the case that one follows from the other, but what I'm interested is in an individual's relationship or commitment to neutrality and it's implications.

For example, I find it problematic when people are quick to pick up the flags of nations they didn't vote for and do not represent them, no different than they would pick up a sports jersey. So I would opt for being neutral in this regard, to support a cause without pledging loyalty to a foreign nation.

There are a number of ways in which individuals can take sides during a conflict and give support for it. So what are the pros and cons of neutrality during conflict for individuals?