Neutrality: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "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 c...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[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 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, | Neutrality is distinct (though not exclusive) from apathy, ignorance, indifference, [[Doublethink]], equality, agreement, and objectivity. 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. Advocating neutrality is non-neutral. | ||
In moderation/mediation neutrality is often expected to make judgments or facilitate dialog independent of any bias, putting emphasis 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, and is expected to operate as-if it has no bias. Neutral Parties are often perceived as more trustworthy, reliable, and safe.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(philosophy) Neutrality]</ref> | In moderation/mediation neutrality is often expected to make judgments or facilitate dialog independent of any bias, putting emphasis 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, and is expected to operate as-if it has no bias. Neutral Parties are often perceived as more trustworthy, reliable, and safe.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(philosophy) Neutrality]</ref> | ||
Revision as of 23:00, 30 September 2016
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. 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. Advocating neutrality is non-neutral. In moderation/mediation neutrality is often expected to make judgments or facilitate dialog independent of any bias, putting emphasis 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, and is expected to operate as-if it has no bias. Neutral Parties are often perceived as more trustworthy, reliable, and safe.[1]