======================================================================
=                      Neutrality (philosophy)                       =
======================================================================

                             Introduction
======================================================================
Neutrality is the tendency not to 'side' in a conflict (physical or
ideological), which may not suggest neutral parties do not have a side
or are not a side themselves.
In colloquial use 'neutral' can be synonymous with 'unbiased'.
However, bias is a favoritism for some side, distinct of the tendency
to act on that favoritism.

Neutrality is distinct (though not exclusive) from apathy, ignorance,
indifference, doublethink, equality, agreement, and objectivity.
Apathy and indifference each imply a level of carelessness about a
subject, though a person exhibiting neutrality may feel bias on a
subject but choose not to act on it. A neutral person can also be
well-informed on a subject and therefore need not be ignorant. Since
they can be biased, a neutral person need not feature doublethink
(i.e. accepting both sides as correct), equality (i.e. viewing both
sides as equal), or agreement (a form of group decision-making; here
it would require negotiating a solution on everyone's opinion,
including one's own which may not be unbiased). Objectivity suggests
siding with the more reasonable position (except journalistic
objectivity), where reasonableness is judged by some common basis
between the sides, such as logic (thereby avoiding the problem of
incommensurability). Neutrality implies tolerance regardless of how
disagreeable, deplorable, or unusual a perspective might be.

In moderation and mediation, neutrality is often expected to make
judgments or facilitate dialog independent of any bias, putting
emphasis on the process rather than the outcome. For example, a
neutral party is seen as a party with no (or a fully disclosed)
conflict of interest in a conflict, and is expected to operate as if
it has no bias.
Neutral parties are often perceived as more trustworthy, reliable, and
safe.

Alternative to acting without a bias, the bias of neutrality itself is
the expectation upon the Swiss government (in armed neutrality), and
the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(in non-interventionism).


                         Criticisms and views
======================================================================
Neutrality implies not judging the validity of an opinion.
Thus, a neutral position will provide a platform for all opinions,
including irrational or malicious ones.

In classical periods of enlightenment, neutrality has been looked down
upon as a character vice, an escape from one's duty to think and to
act, as opposed to the modern trend of esteeming neutrality as a
virtue.

Other views include:
* Woodrow Wilson: "Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express
what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble;
we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be
rebuilt."
* In the Supreme Court decision 'Southworth v. The Board of Regents of
the University of Wisconsin System' based on the United States
Constitution's First Amendment, the court decided some funding
decisions should be made through a neutral viewpoint.
* The Oxford English Dictionary documents that by at least 1897
"neutral" meant applying the rules to the facts, as in football
"Neutral linesmen shall officiate in all games."


                          In popular culture
======================================================================
* Prime Directive
* Seerow's Kindness from Animorphs


                               See also
======================================================================