Two scary examples that you may or may not know about (I assume you do because this is old news) that I think demonstrate your question perfectly:
1) Lenin and his Bolshevists take over Russia. They invited other socialist groups to St. Petersburg to discuss how to create a new socialist government. These people arrived, were told that the tsar had been removed from power, and then promptly LEFT, refusing to help or hinder Lenin in his efforts. The rest is history.

2) Not too long ago, there was supposed to be a vote in the new Iraqi government. I do not know what the vote was about. However, the Sunnis became very upset over something and LEFT, leaving the Shiites to the voting.

So I think yes, very often, without meaning to, one ends up supporting the victor by choosing neutrality.

that is a perfect demonstration of my question.

Just some fun information regarding this issue. It's been a while since I read it, but I remember in The Prince, Machiavelli discussed a certain military leader (general or something) who didn't particularly care on what side he fought on. He was a military man and he wanted to do military things. So guess what. The political leader(s) had him killed because they didn't feel that his "neutrality" could be trusted.

In general, can neutrality be trusted?

I dont think it can As humans we are give the freedome of choice it is born in us , it is natural to make a choice in everything we do .. as kids do we touch the socket or listen when mom and dad say no .. do we stay out late or go home these are things we learn over time so i personaly think if you are given something say the question like "how do you feel about abortion" well sure we can say neutral BUT im betting in our minds we will be thinking "what are we expected to say in this certian group of people" and will be giving the neutral responce only to avoid conflict. i think the use of neutral is a safety ground for us .. one way or another we will care . im not sure this was exactly what you ment by the word neutral but mm i tried

does being neutral avoid conflict or displace it and / or continue it.

i believe it is both , in choseing to calim to be neutral you neither face critism (sp?) you arent risking being true to yourself and who you are dispite what others may think of you . and continues it in the since that our friends watch us and most can tell if someones lying . and children learn to hide their thoughts ect. it can be both i would assume

I think it depends on the situation. If I were an evil dictator, I wouldn't trust it. Neutrality can only be trusted, I think, in situations whose outcome is mostly irrelevant in the long run (zB: Should we eat Chinese or Italian tonight for dinner?)

the options are dictator or choice of cuisine? 

They were just examples. EIther the situation matters or it doesn't, and in situations that matter, neutrality is not an option.

"in situations that matter, neutrality is not an option"

 

Granted. But don't some attempt neutrality where, arguably, the situation "matters"?

Yes, many people do.  They do it all the time, presumably, I think, to make their lives as easy as possible, which is not a good reason to be neutral. I think neutrality can even be harmful.

Also, what about people who refuse to be neutral BEFORE they've even learned all the facts of a situation? Is this more or less harmful than people who are eternally neutral?

Good question.  My premise is that they are equally harmful more often than one is more harmful than the other.

Which one do you think is more harmful?

Clearly, willful neutrality is more harmful because those who act before "they've even learned all the facts " will still be in play but will not be countered.

Being neutral is the same as believing in nothing; it can't really be done, unless....the situation has nothing at all to do with you.  Then, when people try to pull you into a debate about it, you can tell them to mind their own business, that you are neutral in the situation because you do not have to take sides, it not being your concern.

I am not being critical of neutrality.  But whenever we do not "take sides" aren't we siding with the victor?

I think you have a point. One only has to choose to refuse to take sides/.  I have in mind now the situation in Nazi Germany regarding the deporting of "undesirables" within Germany and the places they occupied. Many people saw how the Jews, Gypsies, etc. were being treated and either desired this (though they may not have wanted to actively participate in it), or they chose to ignore the matter (stay neutral) because it was what made their lives easiest. In doing so, they chose to protect themselves over protecting others.

But what about political matters that aren't nearly so threatening? For instance (and this is ALL THEORETICAL and not actually what I think), I could choose to take a neutral stance on an important issue like social welfare. Although this issue does affect me,  I don't feel like it does and therefore, I choose to be neutral on it because I think that it's someone else's problem. Is this way of thinking the same as choosing to protect one's self rather than others (as in the example of Nazi Germany), or can a person morally and ethically be excused from being neutral on a matter he/she honestly believes has nothing to do with him/herself when the possible outcome of an issue isn't actually a choice of life or death for someone else?

I am not sure neutrality always presents a moral dilemma.  And I don't mean to say that neutrality is always bad.  In the example of the Nazi's neutrality is probably not moral.  In some issues (like some social issues) that just for one reason or another do not make it to your radar screen, neutrality may not rise to a moral matter.  Take this example, I am neutral as to whether they repave my street or not.  others have "taken sides".  Whoever wins, by being neutral, I have taken their side.  and by my neutrality, i am saying i just don't care which side wins.

does that make sense?

Absolutely. I'm still interested in whether or not being neutral on a matter that has made it to our radar screen and that may greatly impact another person, negatively or positively, but not necessarily oneself, is a morally good, bad, or neutral decision?

I think we have to actively be immoral, not passively.  don't we have to "know" to know we do wrong?

oh, i had to jump in here on that thing....

"he that KNOWS to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin..."

However, the absence of action is passivity, and when we are not active, we deteriorate...such as muscles not being use, atrophying and so on....

so no, sometimes we lose by simply doing nothing....

No, I think there is a such thing as neutral. It means you do not care who wins for you feel it doesn't much concern you...or that even though it does it is best you do not involve yourself. Though it is hard to remain in a state of neutrality, it is always good to be able to try(at least in some cases and in my opinion).

"or that even though it does it is best you do not involve yourself"

 

How something concern us yet not involve us?

 

"it is always good to be able to try"

 

Personally, I can't think of anything worse than trying to be neutral.

 

 

Well, perhaps you can't...but I know I can.  Just a difference in opinion I supppose...

 

"How something concern us yet not involve us?"

By choice.  Seems ridiculous I agree...but is also true. 

doesn't everything that concerns us, involve us to some degree?  we may be having a semantics problem.

what would be worse than being neutral?

I'd agree...if I knew what semantics was...or maybe I'd disagree...but as it is I am nuetral(not really... I just don't know)

 

Losing a friend, loved ones dying, getting embarassed in front of someone, getting stuck in the bathrooms at walmart, singin on stage, not being nuetral, ect.

All of the things you listed could be made worse by someone else not wanting to "get into it".  That is exactly my point.

Alright, I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me...i doubt either of us will change the others mind. 

And actually if someone had got involved when i was stuck in the bathroom...that would have been TEN times more embarassing... 

I wasn't trying to get you to change your mind. Just putting a different light on things is all.

Well the light has been lit, acknowledged...and turned off.

 

 

Well dimmed anyways I partially agree...

it's is hard to admit that you agree with something. thanks.

Yeah...its really not that hard though... 

From another angle, a person might choose to be "neutral" in fear for what will happen if they choose a side. As for me, personally, when I say that I am "neutral" about something, I mean that I really haven't investigated the matter enough to say that I belong to one side or another.

I don't mean to criticize neutrality.  We are all "neutral" from time to time.  Often, because we don't know enough yet to choose a side, as you say.  But isn't the effect the same whether we have a noble reason for neutrality or not?  aren't we allowing others to determine the outcome of events for us when we stay out of it?  And aren't we siding with whoever the victor might be?

Indirectly, what you said is right; if we stand aside and claim "neutrality" then we are essentially siding with the victor because we've chosen not to support a side. I like the way you phrased it in the response than in the question - I understood it better.

Thanks.  This whole series of questions is proving to me that people can discuss and sometimes disgree without becoming disagreeable.  Thankyou for your many responses.  I have learned a lot from you.

You're welcome, Dobie! This is kind of fun!