(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.
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.
I think all three of your points make a lot of sense.
To me, there are issues on which one should not be neutral. Some things are good, and should be supported. Or if some politician is trying to drum up another unnecessary war, then we are right to oppose him.
I think the thing we should remain neutral about is giving ourselves a label or self-definition which interferes with clear thinking. Each and every issue should be examined on its own, and not supported or opposed because of its origin or who its backers are.
So for example some people make it an important part of their self-definition that they are pro-science. And then some of these people repeat "trust the science" as a kind of mantra, and forget that science is done by fallible humans with different agendas. Dr. Fauci lied for political reasons, and failing to recognize that because he looks science-y on TV is a failure of rigor.
Likewise people who hate a particular country or party or movement to the point where they can't see what's really happening.
Maybe the best statement of this position is in On the Abolition of All Political Parties, by Simone Weil.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/...al-parties
