Neutral parties are often perceived as more trustworthy, reliable, and safe. 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. In moderation and mediation, neutrality is often expected to make judgments or facilitate dialogue independent of any bias, emphasizing on the process rather than the outcome. Neutrality implies tolerance regardless of how disagreeable, deplorable, or unusual a perspective might be. 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). viewing both sides as equal), or agreement (a form of group decision-making here it would require negotiating a solution on everyone's opinion, including one's own which may not be unbiased). accepting both sides as correct), equality (i.e. Since they can be biased, a neutral person need not feature doublethink (i.e. A neutral person can also be well-informed on a subject and therefore need not be ignorant. Apathy and indifference each imply a level of carelessness about a subject, though a person exhibiting neutrality may feel bias on a subject but choose not to act on it. Neutrality is distinct (though not exclusive) from apathy, ignorance, indifference, doublethink, equality, agreement, and objectivity. However, bias is a favoritism for some side, distinct of the tendency to act on that favoritism. In colloquial use neutral can be synonymous with unbiased. 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. For other uses, see Neutral (disambiguation).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |