# Neutrality is a definite judgement Often, when asked a question, people believe displaying neutrality is a sign of maturity or impartiality. The paradigm of this behaviour is the principal who tells two children caught fighting on the playground that "It does not matter who started the fight, you two should stop." If you think about it, ==**of course it matters who started the fight**==;[^1] if the parent of one of the children comes and throws a punch to the principal, will the latter accept that who started the fight does not matter? In fact, the principal merely had neither *information* nor *interest* about the fight. Likewise, **when powerful countries tell weaker countries to stop fighting, it is because conflicts are *inconvenient***. It is also because suspending judgement signals that one is above the fray. The principal would not lower himself to taking sides in a children's fight, would he? It is important to remember that neutrality is a choice,[^2] and it should be chosen if, and only if, the current evidence at your disposal does not allow you to lean on either side of an issue. Furthermore, it does not set you above anyone else; one might even argue that not taking sides is worse than taking one.[^3] However, people can only invest so much brainpower in taking a side during a conversation, since our willpower is limited. It is therefore also acceptable to remain neutral because of a lack of thinking, **as long as one is conscious of it and does not pretend to be wiser than the debaters**. --- ## 📚 References - [Pretending to Be Wise](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/7gRSERQZbqTuLX5re/p/jeyvzALDbjdjjv5RW) - LessWrong. [^1]: ![[Quotes MOC#^9407a7]] [^2]: ![[Quotes MOC#^66407d]] [^3]: ![[Quotes MOC#^99a58c]]