I think the problem is: what is your moral duty in those cases? If you see someone bleeding in the street you do have a moral obligation to try to help them. But if the police are beating someone, do you have a moral obligation to try to stop them by force? To videotape it? To join an organized political movement to reform the police? Or just to publicly agree that it’s wrong?
In the employer case, do you have an obligation to quit on the spot in support of your coworker? To complain to HR/ a higher-up? To join a union that supports the working rights of whatever class was being descriminated against?
Those are all (in my opinion) moral goods. But I have a hard time understanding how far the moral obligation might extend and what counts as sufficient action to appease it.
Going back to the idea of a duty to aid: Let’s say you see someone hit by a car and run over to assist them (as you should). I’d argue you have a moral obligation to help them in the moment, and probably to testify against the driver if found. But do you have a moral obligation to support increased penalties against reckless driving? To join organizations that promote pedestrian safety through civil engineering?
There is a difference between immediate action and political action, which is what being neutral is about.
You are not morally obligated to risk your life in the defense of others, nor, IMHO, your livelihood in the defense of other’s livelihood.
It’d be a noble thing to do, and the world would be a shittier place were it not for those who have, but it is not something that can or should be expected of your average person.
However, you should risk some level of discomfort and inconvenience, especially if it is in defense of the lives or livelihood of others.
Like countries, people can only remain neutral as far as they are able to enforce said neutrality.
So if you want to remain neutral about the social issue du jour, but you’re a big snowflake about public ridicule, your ability to enforce your neutrality is curtailed, even if it’s self-inflicted. Claiming neutrality doesn’t grant you immunity from negative opinion on your non-action.
So there may or may not be a “moral right” to neutrality - personally, I’d say “Sure, why not?” - but it’s a useless right without any teeth.
I’m still not sure I understand the concept of a “moral right”. What happens if you have the moral right to do something? You can’t be criticized for it? You can’t be fired for it? You’re more free to do it than things you lack the moral right to do? Less free?
A “moral right” to do something is basically a claim that doing that thing is consistent with a moral code.
There are a variety of moral codes, so we might disagree about what the rules ought to be. But we also might be able to come to an agreement on some things.
A moral right is not a legal or social right. Obviously you can be criticized or fired for doing something that you believe is morally correct.
So, the OP might be rephrased: If there is an issue that you comprehend the morality of, is it moral to remain silent on that issue, or must one morally support it in some way.
I think that there are shades of gray, but there is also areas that are black and white. In this spectrum it’s difficult if not impossible to land right in the middle. Take racism for example. Someone who is in the Klan or a neo-Nazi is obviously at the far end of wrong. Someone who, say, is less likely to hire a Jamal than a William, is less wrong, but still on the wrong side and not being neutral. Next might be someone who votes for Trump but doesn’t personally engage in racist behavior. That person still falls on the black side of pure gray, although not as far as the other two people. The tricky part comes to when you have a person who doesn’t vote. In this situation things get harder to judge as to whether or not that person’s action is morally neutral. I think the circumstances surrounding why they decided not to vote would then come into play. Is it because they just don’t pay attention to politics? Are they a both sides are the same believer? Do they disagree with Biden on some other ground that overrides fighting against racism, such as a genuinely held anti-abortion belief? All of those things come into play.
And of course this is just one area of morality. Taking an overall look at the person is important. If someone focuses too narrowly on one area, you could end up with some staunch PETA type person saying that supporting Hitler was the moral thing to do because he loved dogs and was a vegetarian.
No one should be, or feel, coerced into joining a protest. In a democracy you have the right to peacefully protest, but you also have the right to choose not to. I would welcome anyone who wanted to march alongside me against something I hated, or for something I loved, but I would never dream of trying to bully or shame them into joining me. That’s both morally wrong and undemocratic.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire (attrib.)
“I disagree with your decision to remain neutral on an issue that’s very important to me, but I will defend to the death your right to do so.” - Elendil_s_Heir
I’ve long found this sentiment offensive. No, I am not obligated to accept your definition of oppression. Nor am I required to express my opinions to you or anyone else, not to mention to join in you preferred means of expression.
Supporting a good cause is more moral than being neutral towards it, but being neutral towards a bad cause is being better than being for it. Ideally, for every cause a person would investigate and figure out which side is correct, but there’s only 24 hours a day, and figuring out if Kony is a real issue doesn’t put food on the table.
In a lot of social causes, being neutral is arguably a conservative position, since it means to maintain a certain status quo, such as in cases that are about institutional use of power, like police conduct.
And anyway, what does “being neutral” mean in this discussion, exactly? If someone is expressing racist views in front of a small group that includes you, and you say nothing, is that being neutral? Not doing or saying anything at all if confronted with police brutality in front of you, as pointed out earlier? Not voting for President?
You’re not obligated to accept someone elses definition, but if you reject their definition you are, from their point of view, choosing the side of the oppressor.
You’re not required to express your opinion, but if you don’t, you are, in considering power dynamics, choosing the side of the oppressor.
The basic sentiment does not require joining a particular means of expression, and I don’t fault you for finding it offensive if someone uses it to include that.
How about not expressing a public opinion on someone expressing racist views NOT in your presence, or hearing about police brutality in a different city?
The BLM protestors mentioned in the OP were not responding to an immediate incident.
Sure, but I’m not going to have my speech/actions dictated by someone else’s point of view. Nor, am I going to accept someone’s suggestion of a “with us or against us” dichotomy regarding many/most complex social issues. I might agree with part of your position, but not how you are expressing it, at least at this time. And I tend to resist the herd instinct of simply falling in line behind the person with the loudest bullhorn.
Which is a good thing to do. Messages should be evaluated by their merit, not their volume. But not relevant to the points I was trying to make, and sometimes just an excuse to be contrarian instead of engaging with the message. It’s not actually an argument by itself.
Neutrality suggests support for the status quo. Granted, not as much as vocal defense of the status quo, but neutrality means you are content with the status quo.