About Neutrality and "Sitting on the fence"

Hello dear reader,

On this post, I want to share my view on neutrality or what you can call ‘sitting on the fence’.

Wiktionary defines neutrality as the state or quality of being neutral; the condition of being unengaged in contests between others; the state of taking  no side on either side; indifference.

Wikipedia describes "Sitting on the fence" as a common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality or hesitance to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition, or inability to decide due to lack of courage. This is done either in order to remain on good terms with both sides, or due to apathy to the situation and not wanting to choose a position with which one doesn't actually agree.

Neutrality is a situation in which you don’t want to show your true perspective on issues of serious moral implications which maybe be as a result of not wanting to be perceived as being gruesome.

There’s a popular quote from Dante Alighieri that addresses the issue of neutrality. Dante describes ‘neutrals’ as; people who couldn’t make up their minds to make a choice given two distinct options and as fallen angels who refused to commit themselves to either God or Lucifer and stayed neutral. The quote goes thus,

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who keep their neutrality in times of moral crisis....”

This quote was extracted from Canto III of Inferno from Dante’s Divine Comedy.

By analysis, the darkest places in hell, according to Dante, are reserved for the people who have done the most gruesome crime; Neutrality.

Each one of us has some standards which guide us in case we have to make some moral choices. For instance, an honest person’s morals would not allow him to cheat his principles and to compromise on his duty.

Life often makes us face some dilemmas when we have very narrow situations. We can avoid burden on ourselves by being silent (That is, being neutral and thereby compromising on our morals).

 As a hypothetical example, suppose there has been a crime in front of you and you are one of the possible prime witnesses. You have two choices; Say your statement boldly and the criminal is bound for the punishment or remain neutral by saying that you didn't see anything and save yourself off this predicament.

Consequently, suppose the wrongdoer threatens you to rob off your life, if you speak the truth. What do you do? Do you maintain the neutral stand or follow your morals? Certainly, now, you are faced with a moral crisis.

If you remain neutral in the court, you are actually helping the criminal and it would be quite rational to call you a criminal too (with equal negative credits) since you helped the crime to go unchecked while you could have stopped it. As a matter of fact, it would not be wrong to say that, you are one of the reasons crimes happened thereafter.

That's why people compromising by being neutral must be seen sinful than the sinner (hence awarded the darkest places in hell).

Neutrality is a form of hypocrisy as it were and, in my opinion, should be frowned at.

Furthermore, it is worthy of note that putting people in a position of neutrality is wrong. Here’s an extract from Stand to Reason website on a post written by Greg Koukl:


My youngest brother raised his children in Hawaii. At the time, the public school system there conducted exercises in values clarification in which the students were encouraged to develop their own beliefs about morality. The teacher was "neutral," explaining to the students that it was up to them to formulate their own moral conclusions to these ethical dilemmas.
The children were asked to solve this problem. An aged man had taken the life of his seriously ailing wife to put her out of her misery. He was being tried for murder. Should he be punished for his "mercy killing," or should he go free?
My brother made a visit to the school to register his concern, but the teacher defended the practice. "We're not pushing our views or imposing our values," he said. "We're careful to let the students know that it's up to them to decide what to do. This is 'value free' instruction. We're neutral."
My brother pointed out that the teacher's approach was anything but neutral. "You're telling my children that when they face the hard questions of right or wrong, when they're confronted with the most difficult problems of morality, there are no guidelines. There are no absolutes. There are no rules. You're teaching my kids that when they must decide critical issues of right and wrong, it's simply up to them.


This goes a long way to show us that it’s wrong to put others in a moral dilemma through one’s neutrality.



I hope I’ve been able to enlighten a mind with this post.



Don’t forget to make use of the comment section; let’s discuss.

 

It’sTaophieyc!



Notable links:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neutrality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy
http://www.str.org/articles/the-myth-of-moral-neutrality#.VrjL7-YTW-c