ffhand, being neutral can easily be countenanced as a form of moral cowardice: not having the wherewithal to defend the right side and so to criticize the other.  Neutrality, thus serves as none other than a ruse for inappropriate moral inaction, a way of masking weakness by giving the appearance of strength; for the claim is that one is strong enough not to take either side.  Yet, it is manifestly clear that there is a side that one should take.  This last remark explains why neutrality is typically seen as a form of moral cowardice; for it is extremely rare that there is not a clear right and wrong to a situation. 

Now being neutral is not exactly the same thing as not getting involved.  To be sure, being neutral can be a way of not getting involved; however, it is perfectly possible not to be at all neutral and, at the very same time, not get involved.  Here is an example.

It may obvious to everyone who knows all the parties involved that I think it most inappropriate for parents not to send their children to the best schools that they can afford.  Yet, this is precisely what the Jones-Smith family does.  And guess what: I never comment upon the matter, either to the parents or to anyone else.  There is no neutrality on my part here, although it is manifestly the case that I do not get involved.  Indeed, the parents may be rather mindful of the fact that I take the moral stance of not commenting upon the fact that they prefer spending their quite handsome income on material goods rather than the education of their children.

Within limits, it seems that not getting involved is required by the principle of having respect for the freedom of people to conduct their personal lives in the way that they wish (given the usual rider of not causing others harm).  It seems to me that politeness is meant to cover cases of just this sort.  Thus, when I know a married couple, the only thing that I ever say about how the wife dresses constitutes an obvious compliment: “You look lovely today”.  In general, politeness is not about sincerity.  It is simply a social lubricant, the classic example of which is the utterance of “Congratulations” by the loser of a match.  No one in her or his right mind—not even the winner—thinks that the loser of the match wanted the other person to win. 

Let me return to neutrality, I have claimed that neutrality can be seen as a moral power.  I should make good that claim.

Crucial to my viewing neutrality in this way is the fact that disputing parties can be simply interested in dominating or having their way rather than doing what is right; and to this end, they will employ any means available to them, and so are more than willing to invoke the moral stance of someone who has a measure of gravitas.  Family members often play one another in this way.  Certain forms of racial pressure also take this form as well.  What exactly does one say to the mother who insists that unless one takes her side, then one has no appreciation for all that she has done for one?  Or, suppose that one is an X (pick your group).  What exactly does one say to Adrian (also an X) who chimes to one that unless one takes Adrian’s side against Joe the non-X, then one is not really an X?  We have a term for this sort of thing.  It is called: manipulation. 

Now, when both sides to a dispute are more interested in manipulation than doing what is right, we have case where taking a stance of neutrality constitutes a moral power and often an exercise of courage.  Many a child has acquiesced to a mother’s wishes in order to silence the mother’s claim “You don’t really love me”.  Many a member of group X has acquiesced to the wishes of Xs rather than have to endure the public ridicule of not being seen as a member of the group. 

It is in precisely these instances the publicly not taking sides typically constitutes an exercise of great moral strength—a steadfast and public refusal to bow to inappropriate moral pressure.  One declares to all sides that one is not taking sides; and then one does precisely that: One does not take sides. 

The public declaration of neutrality is very important because it makes it very difficult for anyone to distort one’s neutrality, in that one has stood up against everyone at once and this is known.  Living well, I believe, sometimes requires nothing less than a public declaration of neutrality to all parties involved, thus serving notice to all that one will not be manipulated.  While taking such a stance can require considerable moral courage, it is also the case that doing so typically gives one considerable moral leverage.  This is because one has drawn a line in the sand; and it typically suffices to remind people of just that fact. 

Experience shows that those who do not respect that line in the sand are merely interested in dominating one; and this, too, is a point that one make explicit, be it to a parent or to a friend of one’s ethnic group or whomever.  Do you want me (a) to say what is right or (b) merely to agree with whatever it is that you say?  There is no way for anyone to give (b) as an answer. 

Neutrality can be countenanced as a way of being polite when thrust between dueling parties who not interested in doing what is right but gaining domination.  For politeness, as I have already indicated, is a social lubricant and it is not about truth as such. 

The suggestion, then, is that neutrality can be an exceedingly powerful social lubricant when faced with “warring factions”. 

Neutrality can also be countenanced as marvelous form of maturity; for it is the recognition that not disputes can be settled by the weight of reasons, precisely because the weight of reason is the last thing on earth in which the disputing parties have interest. 

Taking the stance of neutrality, then, can be a very profound way of calling attention to just this fact. 

As with many things in life, the intentions with which one performs the behavior make all the difference in the world.  It is true, as I noted at the outset, that sometimes people are neutral because they are afraid of taking a stand. 

Of great significance, however, is the fact this need not be the case at all.  Neutrality can be an exercise of considerable moral courage—a reminder to all involved that one will not be a party to a debate where the aim of doing what is right is utterly irrelevant.  Thus, neutrality can be a most powerful way of calling into question the moral commitments of the parties in question.  A very hard “moral slam” if you will.  Sometimes, moral slamming is very much in order.  The mistake lies in thinking that moral slamming is about yelling this or that from the roof-tops.  Quite the contrary, sometimes the most effective moral slamming that we can do consists in the public refusal to be party to the debate.  It is no doubt true that yelling from the roof-tops has its place.  But so does deafening silence.  Neutrality at its best is silence surfeited with meaning.  It is deafening silence, if you will, that is hollowed by an unfailing commitment to integrity and righteousness.  Neutrality is often the most powerful and effective way to avoid being morally sullied.  At its best, neutrality is not for the weak, but the strong.