Neutrality

[meany]

And then there were three. We've covered evil and good. Now for neutrality. No Webster. No encyclopedia stuff. Your own personal definition. Blah blah blah.

Neutrality: Having no strong feeling for one side or the other. Having no involvement in a situation.

Again, yes, I'm collecting data on you all.

[Valynth]

Neutrality:  See apathy
Apathy: see Neutrality

wait a minute....

[Brunhidden]

Neutrality:  See apathy
Apathy: see Neutrality

wait a minute....

actually thats sloth

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?

Who knows? Who cares?

;-]

[LionHeart]

Neutrality:  See apathy
Apathy: see Neutrality

wait a minute....

actually thats sloth

Sloth is laziness. Not the same thing as apathy. Apathy is not caring.

"Lazy people care. They just don't do anything about it." - Garfield

[superluser]

Neutrality is something that neither benefits nor harms the universe at large or some part of it.

Interesting note: I  had considered stating that good was something that benefits or does not harm the universe, but that would imply that the universe is essentially good.  It is neither good nor evil.

[Alondro]

Neutrality:  See apathy
Apathy: see Neutrality

wait a minute....

actually thats sloth

I dun thinked sloths were dem thangs what had three toes an' hanged upside down in trees an' had green blood an' stuff.   

[Ryudo Lee]

"If I don't make it, tell my wife I said 'hello'."

[Cogidubnus]

Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?

Who knows? Who cares?

;-]

*rimshot*

[Fuyudenki]

Neutrality: the art of riding the fence.  This is usually done in an effort to remain friendly with both opposing parties(in this case, good and evil), but almost invariably results in becoming equally hated by both parties, which gives you the worst of both worlds.

Typically, it's better to pick a side and stick with it than remain neutral, and get both sides wanting your head.

[Aisha deCabre]

I tend to disagree about that when it comes to neutrality.  Neutral people are the kind who try to listen to both sides of an argument, try to see things from both points of view, and also enlighten either side on those points...and if they're hated for it, it's usually because neither side wants to see their opponents' point.

Neutral people can also be those who would rather stay out of fights, and who are non-confrontational.  You know, those who some call cowards?  That's usually me, actually.

Anyway, to avoid turning this into a rant...judges are supposed to be neutral, not taking a side until they hear both sides.  Of course, the way some say the legal system is rather one-sided, they may not agree with me on that.   

[Tapewolf]

Aisha has more-or-less taken the words right out of my mouth on this.  Disinterest in the quarrel and staying out of the fight is basically how I'd define it.  What Raist describes seems a bit more like sucking up 

[superluser]

I tend to disagree about that when it comes to neutrality.  Neutral people are the kind who try to listen to both sides of an argument, try to see things from both points of view, and also enlighten either side on those points...and if they're hated for it, it's usually because neither side wants to see their opponents' point.

I tend to disagree with *that*.  Neutral people may be trying to be impartial and listening to both sides, but that's not necessarily the case.  That's the case with good neutral people, but...well, look at the Swiss in WWII.

[Aisha deCabre]

Well, that's another thing, there's a different definition of neutrality for different situations.  I'm talking about small-scale things like, say, being caught in the middle of two friends' arguments.  Large-scale things like war, people will probably say the rules are all too different.

[Reese Tora]

neutral would be a lack of polarity, a state of being neither here nor there, betweenness

neutrality isn't a state to be defined, but a lack of a defined state.

[Netrogo]

I can't find it but my definition of Neutral is one of those demotivational posters.

True Neutral
Get off the damn fence already!

Roughly, I can't remember it exactly but that's the general idea, and it rings true. Pick a freaking side you lazy bastards!

[Jim Halisstrad]

A dream full of hope, ca-  fuck it.  YOU RUIN EVERY THING YOU STUPID INTERNET.

[Alondro]

Judges are not supposed to be neutral.  They're supposed to side with the law, ie, they side with their societies code of conduct.  It's not true neutrality.

To be truly neutral, one must be some sort of inanimate object.   

"Because thou wert neither hot nor cold, I shall spew thee out of thy mouth."

In other words, make up yer minds ya bunch o' wusses!   

[Cvstos]

I have no strong feelings one way or another on this subject matter.

If I don't make it, tell my wife I said hello.

[gh0st]

neutrality, to me, can be defined as anything but the internet, that or anything that is not human for that matter

[Angel]

I can't decide if neutrality and moderation are the same thing. To me, neutral means not leaning one way or the other; one just knows the facts and doesn't impose their morals on them. It's pretty difficult-sounding, when you think about it.

[everance]

neutrality to me is the art of remaining between what is considered good and evil.  doing nothing and meaning nothing all at once.  changing faces and switching roles at the beat of you heart to show everyone around you only what they want to see.  that is true neutrality, living only for oneself without claiming a side or a role in the world.  that is my definition of neutrality.

[Darkdragon]

Neutrality is the adjective describing the state of being neutral, leading to my definition of neutral.

An object or an act is neutral between two parties if it does not favour one party or another in any way. For comparison, I define the polar terms "good" and "evil" as an object or an act which is, in a some way, advantageous or disadvantageous to a party, imposed by a second party, respectively.

Dissecting those statements, yes, neutrality is relative; as so is "good" and "evil". That is to say, an act which is considered evil by one party might be considered neutral between two individuals of the party if they are affected equally. For example, if corrupt government officials raised taxes for personal gain, this would be widely regarded as an evil act to the people who are affected because they are worse compared to before. However, by my definition, between two arbitrary individuals of the taxed population, this act is neutral because neither individual is better off than the other one.