neutrality requires no choice.

could neutrality be close to the concept of “objectivity”?

Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.

General applications

The term “objectivity” designates both a feature of scientific investigators and a feature of scientific inquiry itself. To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one’s thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. The forms of observation and experimentation, and the canons of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective.
As stated earlier, the term “objective” can be applied to methods used in this process or results produced by it. For example, if a study to determine the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical drug is double-blind, randomized, and placebo controlled, the study can be called “objective” because it adheres to methods that are known to improve the reliability of its results.
Law, medicine, and almost every academic field have developed rules of evidence and guidelines for objectivity particular to their subject matter. In history, for example, objectivity is achieved through the use of the historical method and peer review of journal articles in which authors’ proposed explanations and analyses of historical events are evaluated by other experts, prior to publication.
It is a matter of dispute among experts to what degree aesthetic and ethical judgements, as well as judgements involving the interpretation of the law, can be objective. Some hold that the beauty or merit of artworks and literary works cannot be objectively decided. Others deny this. Some claim that ethical judgements are relative to an individual’s values or to the norms, mores, and folk-ways of society. Others deny this. There are impressive arguments on both sides.

Objectivity and subjectivity

Painting by Jackson Pollock

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that ‘2 plus 2 equals 4’. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, ‘That painting is beautiful’ may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone.
The above examples are non-controversial. There are, however, other issues considered objective by some, not all. The role of Evolution vs. Intelligent design in the formation of living organisms is a typical example. Here, there are more objective arguments to support evolution than creation. Hence, an objective person will conclude that evolution is the most objective explanation. This illustrates that the objectivity of a theory does not depend on the approval of all. Sometimes, the objective opinion is held by a minority as, for example, Copernicus and Galileo’s theories on the rotation of the Earth.

Objectivity versus neutrality

Neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. In a controversy, an objective person will not remain neutral but will chose the side supported by the most objective arguments. Objectivity therefore requires a choice, which is often difficult and may prove to be erroneous, whereas neutrality requires no choice.