Poll: Morally Neutral?

[Eddi]

Is it possible for a person (or thing - e.g. an organisation) to be morally neutral?

Neither good nor bad?

I say no.

But I believe it is possible for a person to be both good and bad, but that in such a case the two wouldn't cancel each other out and make one morally neutral. Instead, it would make one good in some respects and bad in others, and overall both good and bad.

I think there are only two conflicting tendencies in the character of humans - goodness and badness.

Please, vote in the poll and explain your reasons in this thread!

 

[Erebus]

I would argue that anybody who is either incapable of action or at least incapable of controlling their actions could be viewed as morally neutral. Babies are the obvious example here. Without the ability to choose, how can somebody be said to have committed a moral or immoral act?

There are a couple of counters to this argument. These are typically connected to religious belief and hold that people are inherently moral or immoral from birth. Some variations on the concept of original sin are a classic example.

For anybody who is capable of consciously weighing up their actions, it gets a little trickier. Firstly, as you mentioned, you have to decide whether or not good and bad actions can effectively balance one another out. If you hold that the actions don't cancel each other out then I agree that it would be impossible for somebody (other than those mentioned in my first paragraph) to be morally neutral.

If you hold that good/bad actions do cancel each other out, you would then have to decide what weight those actions carry. Typically, people give more weight to immoral actions. For example, imagine that a surgeon deliberately murders 1 out of 10 patients he treats. Do the 9 saved lives outweigh the single murder or is he somebody who needs to be locked away? If somebody tells a lie approximately 25% of the time when they speak, can they be said to be honest or trustworthy? You get the idea.

This tendency to emphasise the bad would make it very difficult for somebody to be morally neutral as simply balancing out one good deed for every bad one probably wouldn't cut it. As a further complication, which actions are considered good/bad and exactly how much weight they carry will vary between cultures and individuals. With this in mind I suppose it would be theoretically possible for somebody's actions to align in such a way that everybody agrees the good and bad carry equal weight. However, I would probably be more inclined to bet on a monkey producing the entire works of Shakespeare by randomly mashing keys on a typewriter.

 

[crossfire]

A baby.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Morals are just codified behaviour.

They are neither good nor bad of themselves.
My morals good, your morals bad, seems to be as definitive as it gets.
Morals seem to be allocated Good/Bad on a case by case basis. rather than by any set standard that applies to all.

Morals tend to be formed around "Issues" that affect daily life.
It is difficult not to take side on these issues.

All people have a sense of morality though their choices can be very different.
At the present time there is a considerable conflict between what is seen as moral, between China and many western countries. Both are certain that their allocation of morals and virtues is correct.

Perhaps morals should be viewed as the framework under which a particular society operates, rather than Good or Bad.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think there are only two conflicting tendencies in the character of humans - goodness and badness.

There are probably several - one being a tendency towards selfishness (which often is rather natural) as opposed to selflessness (which tends to be less natural), and for which goodness or badness are often not appropriate.

 

[stvdv]

s it possible for a person (or thing - e.g. an organisation) to be morally neutral?

Neither good nor bad?

1) Having morals, means you have "certain thoughts"
So, if you are without thoughts, then it might happen you are "morally neutral"
(not many people manage to go without thoughts for an extended period of time, though)

2) If you never thought about a certain subject, I can imagine one might be neutral

3) If you start to think about a "moral issue" BUT you are not judgmental
I can imagine it's easier to be "morally neutral"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is it possible for a person (or thing - e.g. an organisation) to be morally neutral?

Neither good nor bad?

I say no.

But I believe it is possible for a person to be both good and bad, but that in such a case the two wouldn't cancel each other out and make one morally neutral. Instead, it would make one good in some respects and bad in others, and overall both good and bad.

I think there are only two conflicting tendencies in the character of humans - goodness and badness.

Please, vote in the poll and explain your reasons in this thread!

I would say definitely morally neutral is more than possible. In fact I'd recommend it.

Their are times I help people out and other times I'll walk right on by.

When your neutral you can't be immoral no more or less than you can be moral.

Personally I find it a nice position to be in because there are no hangups that can be associated to morality and immorality.

 

[Nakosis]

Is it possible for a person (or thing - e.g. an organisation) to be morally neutral?

Neither good nor bad?

I say no.

But I believe it is possible for a person to be both good and bad, but that in such a case the two wouldn't cancel each other out and make one morally neutral. Instead, it would make one good in some respects and bad in others, and overall both good and bad.

I think there are only two conflicting tendencies in the character of humans - goodness and badness.

Please, vote in the poll and explain your reasons in this thread!

As I see it there is personal morality and there is cultural morality. One's personal morality you can't be neutral with since it is a part of what makes you, you. You feel what you feel, you can't be unbiased about it.

However, cultural morality one can in some cases be neutral with regards to cultural/society's morals.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can't really answer the poll question one way or the other. I don't think it's the case that a person is either moral or immoral, but rather the actions that a person takes, and it is very possible for any person to do some morally good things and some morally bad ones.

Furthermore, the definition of what is morally good or bad is in question. There are those who are certain, for instance, that masturbation is moral turpitude at its worst, while I happen to think that its morally indifferent, and can be quite pleasant, to boot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it possible for a person (or thing - e.g. an organisation) to be morally neutral?

Neither good nor bad?

I say no.

I say the question is somewhat invalid.
It assumes that people in and of themselves are good or evil. I say this is wrong.
good/evil are labels that we put on actions that are done by people.

We like to extend that to encapsulate the whole person, that is certainly true. And usefull at times.
But when Hitler was brushing his teeth or walking his dog and minding his own business, he wasn't doing anything evil...

So when we say that a person is "good", what we really mean is that the good that person has done, outshines the bad things that person has done (or that we aren't aware of the bad things the person has done, off course...).

And the reverse... if a person's bad deeds were REALLY bad or very numerous, it will cast a shadow over whatever good that person potentially also did.
You can singlehandedly solve world hunger and make sure no child will ever die of hunger again until the end of time... but the world will call you a monster and curse you upon discovering that you raped 2 6-year olds.

So that's what I want to make clear... When someone is called "good" or "bad", what it really refers to is rather a pretty subjective "moral score" people give you based on what they know about your and how they feel about that. This is how one person's hero can be another person's demon.

SO....

With that in mind... the idea of a person being "neutral" would then either mean that his bad deeds perfectly balances out with his good deeds into some zero-sum, or none of the actions carried out by said person ever had any consequence with moral implication.

I'ld say that both are extremely unlikely.
But more importantly: invalid. Because we are dealing here with subjective labels, and your question seems to assume they are objective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Furthermore, the definition of what is morally good or bad is in question. There are those who are certain, for instance, that masturbation is moral turpitude at its worst, while I happen to think that its morally indifferent, and can be quite pleasant, to boot.

I'ld argue that masturbation is a moral practice, as it is beneficial for ones health. And those things that contribute to better health, contribute to more well-being. Things that increase well-being, are good / moral.

In fact, that also serves as a premise in an argument which concludes that forbidding masturbation, is actually the immoral practice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'ld argue that masturbation is a moral practice, as it is beneficial for ones health. And those things that contribute to better health, contribute to more well-being. Things that increase well-being, are good / moral.

In fact, that also serves as a premise in an argument which concludes that forbidding masturbation, is actually the immoral practice.

Well, I suspect we define things slightly differently. I call it morally indifferent because to me, all morality is relational, relative to our interactions with others. So, for example, talking a good walk every day as I age is a good thing, but doesn't have any particular moral quality. I enjoy it, it's good for me, and so on, but has nothing to do with my relationships to others and to the rest of the world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I suspect we define things slightly differently. I call it morally indifferent because to me, all morality is relational, relative to our interactions with others. So, for example, talking a good walk every day as I age is a good thing, but doesn't have any particular moral quality. I enjoy it, it's good for me, and so on, but has nothing to do with my relationships to others and to the rest of the world.

true