Ethics of Neutrality

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've chosen to be disengaged, neutrality is more than I'd contribute. I stopped one of my hillbilly cousins from killing his brother. They both thanked me later, when they sobered up.

[Belacqua]

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

[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.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That takes a hefty dose of neutrality, whether it's genuine or practical.

Your whole response was very well put.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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 agree. Part of what I am hoping to figure out, for my own position, is neutral with regards to what and to what extent.

In terms of what to be neutral about, I would say, be neutral about identity-focused side taking but not of action-focused side taking. In other words, I would opt-out of taking the side of a foreign nation in a conflict, of raising their flag, and of merging my identity with that nation's success or failure. However, I would be willing to support or denounce specific actions taken by nations and combatants during conflict. What that looks like in practice, I am not so sure.

[Belacqua]

In terms of what to be neutral about, I would say, be neutral about identity-focused side taking but not of action-focused side taking.

It's so sad how many people fail to figure this out...

Every day we see some version of "my country right or wrong." Where "country" can be any of a million ways to self-identify. My group good; those people bad.

I feel like a good person has a duty to be skeptical of his own group first and foremost.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gallup Polls

1941

JANUARY 4

WARPLANE PRODUCTION

Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40

Survey #226-K Question #11a

Do you think America's warplane production is going ahead fast enough?

Yes.................................28%

No................................58

No opinion......................... 14

JANUARY 3

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40

Survey #226-K Question #3

Do you think our country's future safety depends on England winning this war?

Yes................................ 68%

No................................26

No opinion......................... 6

Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40

Survey #226-K Question #5

If the United States stopped sending war materials to England, do you think England would lose the war?

Yes................................ 85%

No................................ 8

No opinion......................... 7

NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE 257

Yes................................ 89%

No................................ 7

Undecided.......................... 4