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.
Contents
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. 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.
Alternative to acting without a bias, the bias of neutrality itself is the expectation upon the Swiss government (in Armed Neutrality), and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in Non-interventionism).
Criticisms and views
Neutrality implies not judging the validity of an opinion. Thus, a neutral position will provide a platform for all opinions, including irrational or malicious ones. Such a platform might be perceived as supportive of positions normally prone to conflict.
In classical periods of enlightenment, neutrality has been looked down upon as a character vice, an escape from one's duty to think and to act, as opposed to the modern trend of esteeming neutrality as a virtue.
Other Views include: