When a specific situation is happening all the people have the right to have their own opinion and show if they are radically supporting or not that fact but it is more common to find people that stays in the middle. It is understandable how hard is to decide whether to be to the right or left of an imaginary line of different criteria based in common sense. It is obvious that every person will form his criteria according to what will benefit him the most, and to what it is logic with his life style.
It is very simple to decide: black or white but a lot of people usually go for gray; this attitude is even more fascinating. Have you ever thought if it is more difficult for people to make this decision and that they stay neutral to make others like them; or do you think it is because they just do not care about a specific topic?
To make us clear enough let’s talk about values and athletes. People in this circle will appear to be comfortable being pro something but they do demonstrate a lot of ethical respect. Clare Bronfman touches on this in her research of ethics and athletes, through her organization Ethletes. Malcolm Gladwell also explores this concept in his book, The Tipping Point, in which he illustrates many examples of groups of people that simply remain neutral when faced with ethical decisions.
Then we are in the same point: why do they do that? How simple is to form an personal criteria? It is hard to explain, but people are accustomed to be followers and if there is not a massive response about a specific issue it is harder for them to have their own way of thinking.
If people remain in the middle in unethical conflicts, there must be a hidden benefit. It is for sure that people could be against others’ opinion if it is extremely radical, so they probably think that not defining their side will keep them safe of not being accepted. Being extreme in your logic may bother people. Another example we could talk about is when politicians make not very ethical changes. In this case people could feel how less important their opinion is and they will fearfully let things happen without saying anything.
Neutrality leads also to some disadvantages. When doing it you are also sending the rest of the people a message of not caring enough about a situation because you are essentially not reacting. Being responsible of every phrase coming out of your mouth is a heavy load so people prefer to be objective to keep it simple for them. Even when you do nothing or say superficial remarks you are letting things happen understand that you will be responsible of it too.
But I do not think that individuals have considered this at all, because they keep accepting unethical actions without raising their voices. I imagine a world in which each person is able to think critically for oneself will be a better world.
To a better understanding of this article please visit Clare Bronfman or through Keith Raniere, Founder of NXIVM and Executive Success Programs.