Close Topic Options

Neutrality

"I swore never to be silent whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
- Elie Weisel

What is your view - does Neutrality have a place?

Neutrality

That is a very difficult question. The whole world relies on the fact that Switzerland is always neutral. Thus it becomes the place where warring factions can arrange to meet and seek ways to end the fighting. It also becomes a place where criminals of all types can hide their assets, themselves, etc.

At the same time, Switzerland doesn't play any part on the world stage in condemning the horrors - such as what is happening in Sudan.

Most countries try to remain neutral when it comes to conflicts between neighboring countries, or even within countries (such as the conflicts within Chechnya). While these countries may actually be hoping for a particular outcome, they generally stay out of it.

However, I believe that there is a time for all countries to throw off their cloaks of neutrality. When the atrocities were occuring in Rwanda, everyone should have been rushing in and stopping the genocide. But we didn't. Similar atrocities occur all the time, and most of us just ignore them. I think that the civilized nations of the world should step in and stop the madmen when they are destroying innocent people.


Just my opinion, of course.

Neutrality History & Civil Business Politics

It is against the human nature to be neutral...one will always will have an opinion about what is happening around him.

But we must draw a clear line between involving ourself in other people business that we think are not done as they suppose to and taking a stand and protect what we belive in ...

Nobody will say that Switzerland model should be fallowed ( although it did wonders for them) but trying to change the world to fit our imagine is to much !

Neutrality

I cannot stand 'lukewarm' people or countries. In my opinion, you support it or you don't. When you decide to be lukewarm then it means you do not care anything and anybody, not to mention is a way to want to be good 'with God and the Devil' at the same time. A extremely coward position.

Neutrality

Neutrality or appeasement hasn't worked too well in the past (WWII comes to mind). As long as there are no atrocities like WWII, Rwanda, Sudan (currently), then I say "let the 2 tribes go to war". However, much like a boxing match, the world would be a unbiased referee. If there is a unacceptable situation, then the world steps in. If not, the continue to fight until there is a victor.

The one thing that bothers me, is when a country attacks another and loses. Then becomes upset because it lost everything. If you are willing to go to war, then you DO risk losing everything. You cant bet all your money and then decide to quit after you realize you lost. It is in this knowledge that a restraint on betting your land in a war should help minimize its use. Otherwise, there is no negative to attacking your neighbor, if you get everything back if it doesn't work out for you.

Just a thought,

Vincenzo

Neutrality

I think it depends upon the subject matter. In the instance quoted about human suffering, the first response is to say no. Neutrality isn't acceptable. "You are either for us or against us is" a common statement. However, it depends upon what is meant by human suffering. That term can be twisted and construed in so many ways. In the States, lawyers could use that to suggest that no one should be allowed to wear perfume in public because someone else might be allergic, for example.

So, in classic, horrific human suffering such as went on in Iraq during Hussain's reign or what is going on now in other parts of the world such as the Sudan, I don't think you can really be neutral. As LDS says, what you are being is selfish, or uncaring..."I just don't want to be involved...It isn't my problem"...for example.

In many Islamic countries women suffer. Even if it is simply that they suffer being treated as second class citizens. Yet, I think I am neutral to some extent in many of these cases because it is religious freedom and I don't think I have a right to infringe upon such freedoms to impose my beliefs. (I am not talking about horrific suffering, I am just referring to the right to vote or be educated, for example.)

I recognize that Switzerland is neutral, but even that isn't right in my opinion. Someone has to protect them or they too will be invaded and overtaken if a superpower decides to attempt to rule the world. Neutrality won't save them from occupation. To say they are neutral and then allow horrific acts to take place within their own borders, is definately unacceptable. To say they are neutral and simply turn their heads at horrific acts taking place outside their borders may not be as unacceptable.

My answer seems like I might be neutral on this topic...

Neutrality

I would point out that while Switzerland is neutral in world affairs, it is prepared to defend that neutrality itself. It doesn't have alliances to protect it, but many of the countries around the world would volunteer to defend it in case of attack because its neutrality is such a factor in diplomacy.

Neutrality Politics Business Civil & History

Political neutrality is not worth discussing for me, because my feeling is that the governments of all countries are too generally dishonest and corrupt for their FOR or AGAINST stances to have moral weight.

I would rather work on a personal level. I would prefer for people to take a stand based on the feelings of the heart, research the facts very well, and then remain willing to modify their views when pertinent information is discovered. I hope that I clearly have a stance on each issue I discuss, although my stance cannot always be a categorical FOR or AGAINST answer. Often, my views analyze the right and wrong in specific subplots of the larger issue. I cannot morally say abortion is right, for example; however, I cannot categorically say that all abortion is wrong. The issue is more complicated. Cases of rape, incest, or extreme threat to the mother's health MAY be moral ground to justify abortion. HOWEVER, that is not true in all cases, and each case must be analyzed individually for the correct moral ground upon which to stand.

My point is this - it is possible and beneficial to have an opinion on every issue, and that opinion may not be a straight yes or no, but every opinion should be backed up by sound reasons. On moral or religious issues, the whisperings of the Holy Ghost count as sound reasons for me. Scripture, trustworthy news, personal experience, and historical fact can also work as viable evidence. No opinion comes without a reason, so I never accept an opinion without understanding the logical process that brought the person to that state of belief. Those who are indecisive about their stand on important issues are either insufficiently informed or lacking in moral constitution. Like I said before, 'I have not decided,' 'I am not yet sure,' and 'There doesn't seem to be a viable solution' can be decisive stands, if one can back up the answers with the reasons that rationalize those views.