Introduction Neutrality Idea that in pluralistic society the state should not take sides between different moral religious or philosophical views Perfectionism Idea that the state should favor certain moral ideals Liberal Neutrality A Historical Overview Neutrality emerged as an important topic in the 1970 s after John Rawls published Theory of Justice In it he argues to avoid perfectionist public policies And if any state action is justifiable it must be unanimously approved Which is really hard in a Since people have different conceptions of the good life the state cannot value one conception over another if it is to treat them as equal pluralistic society Dworkin s essay Liberalism gave neutrality widespread attention The power holder should not assert that his conception of good is better than another s that regardless of his conception of good he is superior State action is justified when it is not bound to the ideals of any particular group but rather remains neutral between them Rawls argues there is a difference between a comprehensive doctrine of what individuals value and a political conception of justice which are relatively less controversial Difference is what values are best what values can be enforced The Neutrality Principle The term state can refer to the constitutional structure of a society or simply to the government of the society Comprehensive neutrality principle focusing on overall policies of the government holds that both constitutional structure and state policies should be neutral with regards to what good is not what is good Narrow neutrality principle focusing on constitutional structure holds that only the constitutional structure needs to be neutral whereas state policies do Conception of the narrow principle rests on the idea that a state s constitution has an enormous impact on the ability of a citizen to pursue their idea of cid 127 Many writers stress the coercive nature of the state and therefore we must wonder if the principle should apply to non coercive exercises as well Some writers suggest we shift the focus from the intentions of state officials to the consequences of policies they support They argue that the state is only neutral if the justifications of its policies do not claim to have some superior good Neutrality of justification The state should not aim to do anything to promote any particular conception of the good or give greater assistance to those who pursue it unless a plausible neutral justification can be given for the state s actions Taken one step further is the neutrality of effect The state should not do anything that has the effect regardless of intention of promoting any particular Neutrality of effect seems implausible as usually someone will be disadvantaged by a policy But it can hold if the person receives compensation for the conception of good disadvantage Neutrality may need to be compromised for other values But won t hat defeat the purpose of neutrality So long as well being is not generally compromised the neutrality should be an ideal goal but we can uphold other values for the sake of well being Justifying Neutrality not choose between them may not uphold the principle itself respect to all There are a few ways of justifying the principle of neutrality but it is agreed that the justification for the principle must be neutral in and of itself Following Ackerman is the ecumenical approach There is a plurality of argumentative paths that all lead to the same neutrality principle and one need Jeremy Waldron argues against this ecumenical approach stating that different justifications support different aspects of the principle that may not sit well and that finding the proper justification for neutrality is instrumental in articulating it But in this case one must argue on particular grounds which Following Larmore is the deductive approach That we can find a common conception of good by having minimalist moral considerations therefore giving The argument against the deductive approach is that groups in a pluralistic society simply have insufficient common moral grounds to derive the neutrality principle into effect and so controversial moral claims will inevitably be drawn in Neutrality itself is not morally neutral but rather is a response to ethical disagreement about what the good life is Neutrality also only holds when people have options to choose their own good life or rather a better life which may indeed be unproductive but people often Dworkin s argument is based on the deductive approach but rather than justifying it from shared minimal moral commitments he is focused on the don t have those options controversial considerations Perfectionism and Politics controversial political action All perfectionists hold that the state should favor valuable conceptions of the good cid 127 More specifically it promotes that the state should promote excellence and or assist citizens in their efforts to lead worthwhile lives even if it requires Vinit Haksar sats neutrality should be rejected because it is inconsistent with moral equality and because it exaggerates disagreement in determining which principles of political morality are appropriate Democracy and a liberal state carry with it inherent conceptions of what is good Perfectionism came into its own with Raz s The Morality of Freedom He points out a logical gap between pluralism and state neutrality in that the former asserts the existence of multiple incompatible ways of life while allowing for political action to be taken against those ways seen as demeaning cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 Make perfectionist argument for the state that may non coercively encourage valuable conduct and discourage disvaluable conduct Political perfectionism has a case when the leaders are incompetent and the people trust them cid 127