If Good Is Good And Bad Is Bad, Shouldn't Neutral Be Just Neutral?

Aiko_E_Lara

There Are Good Deeds And Bad Deeds. But What About Neutral?

The world is pretty imbalanced actually and there's no surprise in that and also I doubt anyone can be completely neutral and balanced. But still neutral people exist. Not completely neutral but just neutral.

What Are Neutral People?

If Good Is Good And Bad Is Bad, Shouldnt Neutral Be Just Neutral?

Obviously from the word itself, "Neutral" not caring about any situations going on. There just there to watch and just simply exist. But there are people who likes to make a big deal about them.

Just Examples (I'm not talking about myself)

Example would be, there is a criminal who escaped and I'm just there to watch. Now I'm viewed as a selfish, inconsiderate jerk or just simply demonized because I didn't do anything. But what anyone also failed to realize is I didn't do anything to help the criminal escape. I didn't do anything to help the criminal go even further and not even doing anything to stop the cops or cover for him. It wouldn't make any difference if I'm not there to witness it anyways.

Another example would be, If a child is in front of me abused, and I'm just watching. Of course the obvious reaction from people would be (just read the above) but in reality, I never gave the abuser any weapons or tools to hit that child, I never filmed it to gain views, I never just did anything to make it worse. Still it wouldn't make any difference if I'm not there to witness it anyways.

It's the very same thing getting demonized for not caring about oppression, homophobia, Pedophilia, racism, slavery or etc. Not realizing that of all the people supporting for the laws against oppression, homophobia, racism, slavery or etc, I did nothing to oppose the laws either. I did nothing to worsen it. I did nothing to perpetrate.

One can say the glass is half empty or half full. It's up to you which interpretation you like to take. It is a rights to do whatever i want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. (As long as you're not a perpetrator)

The Truth About The Results

Some people can do good deeds but not realizing that not all good deeds fix things. Some can worsen situations. Most people wouldn't care if the situation got worse as long as that person's intention was good. Vice versa, people doing something bad also doesn't always result in a bad situation. Something called blessings in disguise. Doing something neutral however just doesn't do anything if you're just really 100% involved. No good nor bad changes. The result is just as if you weren't there in the first place. Maybe a really slight change but you wouldn't notice it.

FYI

I do care if anyone is oppressed and it doesn't matter what gender, race, sexuality and age they are. That doesn't make me a supporter of those whatever BS movement. I'm just for equality and that's that. I'm a person who care if there are situations where anyone have to stand up but also I do understand neutrality most people just can't. Anyone being neutral just get demonized a lot. In case you didn't realize, they can be as much as a victim as those victims facing oppression or bullying on the spot. And what I said earlier, "I do care if anyone is oppressed and it doesn't matter what gender, race, sexuality and age they are." And yes that includes those neutral people who face such shame, stigma and getting all the blames. As studies once said that neutral people tend to be depressed. Why worsen it? In addition to the cancel culture which is getting trendy. I don't exactly blame them but are there people who actually praise them for not doing anything to do something that could've worsen the situation? Of course not. I'm not saying you should praise them either. But if you have the energy to put shame on them, you also have the energy to acknowledge or just appreciate them. No excuses. Or just treating them as just neutral is the least you can do. They only see the bad side in them and that's a problem with society.

If Good Is Good And Bad Is Bad, Shouldn't Neutral Be Just Neutral?
3
12
Add Opinion
3Girl Opinion
12Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Girl

  • Anonymous
    Except that if you're not against oppression you're on the side of the oppressor. If you were getting shot and somebody just stood there watching, you would likely feel the they were wrong for not helping you. They weren't shooting, but they didn't help you afterwards. If you're not against oppression, you're on the side of the oppressor for letting the oppression happen.
    Is this still revelant?
    • I would "feel" like it but in reality what i feel is not objective. I can also view it as they also helped me by not making it worse. They helped me by not giving that person a hiding spot or they helped me by not stopping the cops who is eventually going to find out. There are also people who are going to support but i am also letting it happen. Then what? Like what i said it's all in your interpretation. You just like to be one-sided in situations like this

    • That was a pretend but really you didn't read the last part.

    • @Aiko_E_Lara
      Until you are on the ground in pain bleeding a lot and a witness does nothing what you say from here on out is irrelevant to me. If you respond I will keep respondibg with this message.

Most Helpful Guy

  • goaded
    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke.
    Is this still revelant?
    • That would also mean the only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for bad men to do nothing. I can still say that my mytake is talking about being one sided and that includes that quote. If you're not only appealing to authority like just appealing to that quote, can you even give a valid explanation how that quote works? Let's here your one sided explaination.

    • goaded

      "the only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for bad men to do nothing"
      Wouldn't that be nice?

    • Then that contradicts everything you said. A bad man doing nothing is also an act of neutrality. Now tell me where does it say neutral is bad? www.google.com/search

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

211
  • ilikefrogsalot
    I'm speechless. I literally don't know what to say except "what the fuck is wrong with this person?" Should've just kept this opinion in the drafts, bud.
    • You're speechless and you have nothing else to say except ad hominems that doesn't even prove you anything. Go ahead and explain how being neutral is being bad. i can give you any counter arguments to that. Unless you just don't like the truth then yes you're just going to call me stupid and since that's how the world really works, sure the law of nature is stupid.

  • DaisyM23
    I don’t think it’s so black and white, good and bad aren’t objective anymore. I think most people are a mix of both or neutral you know? Most people don’t go around murdering others which is good but maybe some of these people are assholes and treat people with disrespect. Or maybe someone’s a murderer but in a vigilante way in which they go after bad people but it’s still murder. I think people should care about oppression though and I’ll use Niemoller’s ‘first they came for the...’
    • Sure you can encourage anyone to do good deeds and care about oppression but that doesn't really mean the neutral ones should be demonized. Most people also don't go around donating stuff, trying to bring world peace and doing good deeds but instead most are just neutral.

  • NathanDavis
    There has to be a serious lack of empathy to be this kind of careless... there are good things about being impartial, but what you described in here is being careless. and this kind of carelesness is not "humane" which prompts people to describe it as "evil" but a better word is negligence.

    This is exactly what has caused Mexico to fail onto the grip of the cartels and bad governors... - not my problem, I am "neutral" -
    • Neutral is neutral like what i said there. And while a neutral person may lack empathy, they also lack psychopathy.

      The cause of Mexico to fail onto the grip of the cartels and bad governors is the bad governor itself. But what if that "bad governor" is actually good and people are neutral to it? Sure I can say mexico won't fail because the governor is good, supporting peace and equality for everyone whole no body is trying to oppose that because they're neutral. So it has nothing to do with the neutral people. It has something to do with the governors which is even considered "bad" in the beginning.

    • Just a simple question tho. What is the opposite of good?

    • You obviously don't know one thing about the true Mexico, so I will ignore 90% of your reply.

      and the first thing you said is just funny, practically... being a psychopath means to have a serious lack of empathy...

      so again, your portrayal of the word neutral is very lousy

    • Show All
  • Bromeister
    Let's say you're sitting by a lake and you see a person whom you don't know drown. You do nothing but watch. Later, you report it to the police. Of course, they will ask you why you didn't help. If you say you can't swim, understandable. If you say "didn't wanna", of course, they will have some very bad opinions of you.

    There is always some expectation of responsibility and goodwill placed on any person expecting to be regarded as a normal or exceptional member of society. A frail grandma wouldn't be blamed for letting a person drown, but an able-bodied 18 yo swimming champion would. At it's simplest, people don't like it when bad things happen, and there comes a very existential sense of anger and disappointment when they feel that that it could have been prevented, and sometimes those feelings are directed at bystanders they feel are culpable.

    Emphasis on "feel". At its worst, some people just have an agenda and feel the need to make it known. To make it known that they are good and have benevolent thoughts, whilst the other party is only capable of wrongthink.
    • Because that just became a societal standard that people look down on anyone for not doing anything. But yeah you said bad opinion but sure that's just an opinion not a fact. Because of just how people interpret it. As a reason behind it is because of the study showing that people reacts more to negative thoughts more than the positive ones so that's why it's also hard for people to think about the bright side of it. So of course they would say he is bad because he didn't know anything. No one would say he is good because he didn't make the situation worse by putting snakes on it. But in objective reality, he's just lettindoing nothing. How about in situations where there is someone helping someone out for someone is doing a good deed but i'm just there watching doing nothing? Aren't you gonna praise me for just doing nothing and not making the situation bad for them? Of course not unless it's a bad situation i'm not doing anything

  • pjf1958
    Don't look too deep into this line of thinking, or you'll wind up like Nietzsche and write a book. After very little thought, you'll call it "Beyond good and evil'.
    • And what's the matter of being realistic about it? I don't even know who Nietzsche is but if he can write so many factual books that many people can disagree then i assume he/she is logical and i don't see what's the problem with that

    • pjf1958

      There is nothing wrong with it. Only a minefield of long, relatively painless diatribe. That will inevitably lead to nothing being accomplished.

  • MysteriousDarkness
    A lot of times by doing nothing can cause a bad situation to get worse or at the least keep tge suffering going. If you are the only witness to so. eon feting stabbed and they end up dying would you feel better know you tried to help them physically and by calling 911 or by doing absolutely nothing to try and help out to try to save them?
    • The truth is the bad situation doesn't get worse. The bad situation is just going to happen like how it's supposed to happen and it doesn't make a difference if you are not there. You're in your room right now but somewhere, a kid is about to get killed. You don't know what's going to happen whether someone is going to help that good or not. The result will always be unpredictable. If someone's dyin, someone will call 911 and i'm not there to stop that someone trying to call 911.

    • @Aiko_E_Lara
      I find it ridiculous that you think if a person witnesses a stabbing and doesn't help the perpetrator out physically is good and if they do not help the victim out physically or call 911 is bad is the same as if the so called witness was never around or new about the stabbing. By not calling 911 they would be helping the perpetrator and not helping the victim which makes the witness a bad person in that situation. Knowingly not tryingvto help stop the victim from bleeding is allowing it to get worse.

    • You find it ridiculous but that is just your interpretation. The law of nature doesn't make it a bad thing or it doesn't make it a good thing but in reality is a neutral thing. It's just that our brains reacts more to negative thoughts than the positive. On the brightside he never did anything to help the one who is stabbing. He never gave him a hiding spot nor give him another weapon. Letting him go is not what the witness do also because the witness is not stopping any cops. It's ironic actually when people find documentaries about animals so interesting. Do the crew help a deer when they're about to get attacked by a lion? Do they help a dying sick giraffe? No. But people find interesting but at the same time, we are so against animal abuse. But i get it we're talking about animals not humans that's why we dont really add morality to that. The point is, what you consider bad is just your consideration but the law of nature doesn't care.

    • Show All
  • AdithyaR
    But by being neutral in those situations, you're still enabling the bad ones to continue being bad.
    Even neural actions have consequences, not doing anything may not worsen the situation but it's letting the bad situation continue.
    • And by being neutral, i can also enable the act of goodness. The consequences of a neutral act is a result of what is suppose to happen and its not done by you. Just letting it happen doesn't mean you're the perpetrator and also doesn't mean you're making the situation worse. you're making the situation how its supposed to be just like not being there at all.

    • AdithyaR

      I guess that's your belief but I'm a true believer of Ben Parker. When you have the ability to stop something bad from happening, it's your responsibility to stop it, cause if you can stop it and you do nothing, then you're responsible for the bad things.
      Basically, with great power comes great responsibility.

      But this is purely what I believe in, it's fine if you don't agree.

    • Yep ben parker would be a good exaple of what you're talking about. The in peter's situation, he lied saying he was gonna go to the library but he have gone to that arena instead. Thats when he let the rober escape but he didn't make the situation worse by stopping the guard like fighting the guards to help the robber escape even further potentially killing more people. But what if he was really at the library? Ben would still be dead. It's the same result

    • Show All
  • anylolone
    Neutral is neutral.
    But inaction can come at a cost, same as action.
    • The cost is the result that is suppose to happen and what is suppose to happen is not always predictable. A good person can have a consequence while a bad person can be lucky. Both something they don't deserve.

    • anylolone

      Yes.

  • IraqLobster
    If critics never existed movies would have sucked, hope you get my point..
    • If you want to talk about critics, they are certified critics and they're not supposed to be neutral. The very same thing with cops. If cops don't exist, crimes would be worse. I'm not talking about occupations here but i'm talking about an everyday civilian not on the job neutral about some situation that isn't even their job that they care

    • Sure. A critic can be neutral about a movie as long as they are not on duty.

    • As a human you should be critical of what's around you, life out side of a job is still a duty.

    • Show All
  • Curmudgeon
  • NightHawk99
    All it takes for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
    • And it also takes for good men to succeed if evil men do nothing. That's what is called being one sided.

  • Badkarmma
    you just blew my mind
  • zagor
    As a matter of fact the wheels have stopped.
    • Care to explain what's that supposed to mean?

    • zagor

      LOL from "Idiot Wind", a classic Bob Dylan song. That line is preceded by "What's good is bad, what's bad is good". Your question just brought it to mind, along with the fact that he turns 80 Monday.

Loading...