Neutrality as a Moral Standpoint, Conceptual Confusion and the Full Inclusion Debate

Abstract

Opposing perspectives on the full inclusion debate reveal a fundamental disjuncture between underlying conceptual frameworks. Advocates contend that full inclusion is a moral issue that cannot be resolved from a supposedly neutral scientific stance. Defenders of the traditional continuum of placements argue, to the contrary, that scientific research should be the dominant factor in arbitrating between separation and inclusion. In this paper, I examine the concept of scientific neutrality and its lack of tenability as a foundation for sorting out the full inclusion debate. Subsequently, I explore how the assumption of neutrality plays itself out in the context of specific argument against full inclusion and offer some clarification on the moral nature of the debate.