Neutrality (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutrality is the tendency not to side in a conflict (physical or ideological),[1][2][3] 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,[4][5] distinct of the tendency to act on that favoritism.

Neutrality is distinct (though not exclusive) from apathy, ignorance, indifference, doublethink, equality,[6] 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.[6]

In moderation and mediation, neutrality is often expected to make judgments or facilitate dialogue independent of any bias, emphasizing on the process rather than the outcome.[6] For example, a neutral party is seen as a party with no (or a fully disclosed) conflict of interest in a conflict,[7] and is expected to operate as if it has no bias. Neutral parties are often perceived as more trustworthy, reliable, and safe.[3][8]

Alternative to acting without a bias, the bias of neutrality itself is the expectation upon the Swiss government (in armed neutrality),[9] and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in non-interventionism).[3]

Criticisms and views[edit]

  • 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."[10]
  • 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.[6]
  • 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."[11]

In popular culture[edit]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "the definition of neutral". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  2. ^ "Definition of NEUTRALITY". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  3. ^ a b c "Neutrality - IFRC". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  4. ^ "the definition of bias". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  5. ^ "Definition of BIAS". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  6. ^ a b c d "Associated Students of Madison, Viewpoint Neutrality in Funding Decisions". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  7. ^ "What is neutral party? definition and meaning". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  8. ^ Staff, Investopedia (21 May 2008). "Emotional Neutrality". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  9. ^ "Armed neutrality". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  10. ^ "Woodrow Wilson Quotes". Retrieved 16 July 2017.
  11. ^ "neutral, n. and adj.", B.I.3.b. OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2017, Accessed 14 October 2017 (1897 Whitaker's Almanack 644/1 [Association Football] "Neutral linesmen shall officiate in all games.").