RE: Ethics of Neutrality
November 18, 2023 at 11:53 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2023 at 11:59 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Neutral ethics can be great tools. Relativist and subjectivist ethics are both fundamentally neutral. The idea that there is no right or wrong in fact and that all moral statements are contextually equivalent. A neutral stance gives you the most options from the outset. I think their utility probably comes down to situations where you need those options, or alot of space to move, but it's something. As an opening bid in an ethical dispute or as a principle of ethical arbitration it seems like we're pretty much forced to keep it in the toolbox even if it weren't prudent to approach ethical disputes that way - which I think it is. Billions of us in the world. Lots of competing assertions and interests to manage. It often doesn't even matter who's right or wrong (if there is such a thing) in a given issue. We still find reasons (good reasons - as in well founded) to try to accommodate. Splitting the baby.
Strong and inflexible ethical systems can quickly devolve into a deluge of punitive schemes and a parade of recrimination. I think we use neutrality (insomuch as we do) as a sort of backstop against that. Where we find ourselves saying "You know, you both make points and rather than judge the merits of your arguments how can you both be made whole?" How can a conflict be resolved to the satisfaction of participants outside of any determinative statements about their respective positions? That takes a hefty dose of neutrality, whether it's genuine or practical.
Strong and inflexible ethical systems can quickly devolve into a deluge of punitive schemes and a parade of recrimination. I think we use neutrality (insomuch as we do) as a sort of backstop against that. Where we find ourselves saying "You know, you both make points and rather than judge the merits of your arguments how can you both be made whole?" How can a conflict be resolved to the satisfaction of participants outside of any determinative statements about their respective positions? That takes a hefty dose of neutrality, whether it's genuine or practical.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
