[Pet_Ant]

Neutral refers to your motivation not to your effects. If I chose to have lunch at diner A, it may result in the owner of diner B, going homeless but I am not responsible for that. Diner B's owner may not appreciate that, but that doesn't effect my neutrality over who should be homeless or not, just chose on my particular tastes.

[withinboredom]

You are not neutral in this case. You chose a diner. To the mouse analogy, which is an interesting way of putting it. I would say the elephant should lift his leg. It will not harm anyone, but I would also say the mouse isn’t owed recompense. Both of them should watch where they are going.

To be neutral and do nothing, is indeed siding with the oppressor.

[Pet_Ant]

I am neutral in my choice of homelessness. I am choosing based on my cravings independent of the other effects. If the ownership situation was replaced, I would not change my choice. My decision-making is neutral on who is effected. When compartmentalizing to the criterion of selection, I am neutral.

[withinboredom]

That isn't how it works. Just because you are ignorant of the consequences of your choices doesn't excuse you from the consequences. Otherwise it would be a perfect legal defense.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Neutral in the quote refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice).

As for your analogy: You are describing legal and acceptable competition between diners, which is not comparable to the situation here, unless diner A initiated an unjustified, violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest against diner B, for which diner A has been condemned by most countries in the world, and also diner A's leader is wanted for war crimes against children committed while prosecuting this war, and is evading arrest.

If that is the case, then yes, remaining neutral or choosing diner A, is indeed choosing the side of the oppressor, and such a choice would reasonably reflect poorly on you.

[Pet_Ant]

Neutral to me implies intention regards of effects. It's accepting to act independent of effects and only on intention. Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning. Indifference is not evil, malice is.

This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral, which to me seems fanatical, absolutist, and frankly unlivable.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Neutral to me implies intention regards of effects.

That's fine, and neutral in the quote by Desmond Tutu refers to both intention (being in favor of injustice) and effects (effectively supporting injustice, even if that is not your primary intent).

> Otherwise the word "neutral" no longer has any meaning

That's a bit self-centered, innit? 'If you don't agree with my personal definition of this term, the term has no meaning.'

> Indifference is not evil

Indifference/neutrality in situations of injustice can absolutely support the oppressor, which is the entire point of the quote. Indeed, someone with no empathy for those affected by their actions would be meeting at least 1 criterion of sociopathy.

> This formulation states that since every act will inevitably in some way favor one party, every single act is moral

You seem to be skipping over the "in situations of injustice" part of the quote. Most countries agree that russia's violent, irredentist war of genocidal conquest is an injustice perpetrated on Ukraine. The same cannot be said about 2 diners competing.