Getty ImagesHeadlines this week have been inundated with news of artist Macklemore being dropped from Ed Sheeran’s Loop tour, following Macklemore’s onstage calls to “free Palestine”. The rap artist said Robert Kraft, owner of New England Patriots and the Gillette Stadium, barred him from playing in his stadium, and rallied other stadiums to join the boycott.In response, Sheeran’s remaining support acts also withdrew. Sheeran has attempted to distance himself from the decision, suggesting it was the promoter’s and not his. He has taken an “apolitical” stance, referring back to his history of avoiding public political statements. But the resulting condemnation from fans and commentators suggests forcing neutrality in such situations isn’t straightforward. What does it mean to be ‘apolitical’?Politics isn’t limited to government. In a more general sense, it refers to the relationships of power in society and between members of society, and efforts to change them. This seems to be what Ed Sheeran’s recent statements are reaching for. He claims to be apolitical in the sense that he keeps his political views separate from his work as an artist:People buy my records to put on while they make out. I’m not Mr Political. I vote the way I feel I should, but won’t tell somebody else what to do.Importantly, Sheeran’s recent statement doesn’t just claim he is apolitical on the issue of Palestine, but that he is apolitical in general. This would require never expressing any views in relation to the arrangement of power and control in society. It doesn’t seem Sheeran has done this. He has previously supported campaigns against Brexit and far-right racism, has supported Jermey Corbyn, and played a Concert For Ukraine in 2022. These are political positions.So, if Sheeran is not apolitical at all times, this means he chooses to be apolitical on specific issues. In this case the issue is Palestine. Is apolitical the same as neutral?Being apolitical is not the same as being “neutral” on political issues, especially in cases where significant injustice is taking place.Some argue attempts at neutrality on such issues entrench, or at least permit, the injustice.Beyond the entertainment industry, neutrality has often been a question in the context of wars. Here, the importance of weighing intention against outcomes become especially clear. The Red Cross argues its political neutrality allows it to assist more people affected by conflict. On the other hand, mercenary soldiers – who are politically neutral and fight purely for wages – are generally seen as much less ethical. Many current conflicts in the world are fought by such soldiers.The 17th century philosopher Grotius argued that because mercenaries fight for pay, without regard for the justice of their cause, “there is no course of life more abominable and to be detested”.Yet some advocates argue that if mercenaries result in faster ends to a conflict, that outcome may make their actions ethical – though their intentions may not be ethical.Is it unethical to be apolitical?Not always. Being apolitical is defensible based on some philosophical perspectives, but context matters.Greek philosopher Epicurus argued politics is best avoided. He believed we should aim for “tranquility of the soul”, retired from the affairs of the world, and living one’s life in peace. It seems possible to be “neutral” – to not hold views – on specific political issues. Yet many philosophers, including Aristotle and Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, have held that humans are unavoidably political creatures. As such, some issues seem to demand a response from us. Philosopher Hannah Arendt showed it was a kind of “thoughtlessness” that facilitated the evils of the Nazi regime: a failure to pay attention to serious ethical wrongs. In Sheeran’s cases, perhaps from a personal perspective he does think he is being “apolitical”. However, his decision takes place in a broader context, wherein it appears to have been influenced or made by wealthy individuals with well-stated political stances on Palestine. He has gone beyond simply refusing to express his own political beliefs. He has allowed Macklemore’s political views to be removed at the behest of another party acting in its own political interest, thereby favouring one over the other. Action through inactionAnother problem with choosing not to “take sides” on a particular issue is that it is often a response reserved for those who are privileged enough to not be affected by the injustice or power relationship under discussion.At the same time, the more privileged we are, the more ability we have to affect change. This is one of the justifications Macklemore offers for his support of Palestine.Sheeran’s removal of Macklemore from his tour is a statement on whose interests count, and who has the power in this situation. And that’s political whether he wants it to be or not.Jacqueline Boaks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.