(November 18, 2023 at 5:33 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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.OR being victorious.
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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
