Between Neutrality and Perfectionism

What is it about?

It has been argued that the difference between liberal states and theocratic, communist, or fascist states is not that the liberal states promote different ideals of the good, but that they promote none. Unlike nonliberal states, which consider it a primary function of the state to prescribe the moral character of society, liberal states shun such attempts and allow freedom to citizens to develop their conceptions. Many defenders of liberalism argue that liberalism is in some sense neutral with respect to competing conceptions of the good; that instead of adopting an interventionist policy, liberal states should adhere to neutrality. Liberals postulate that governments cannot use as their justification for any action the fact that one person's plan of life is more or less worthy than another's. In order to ensure that every person will be able to pursue his or her conception of the good, neutrality does not endorse any disposition which defines human good and human perfection to the exclusion of any other. It refrains from identifying essential interests with a particular conception of the good life and shrinks from the possibility that the government, which could be associated with one or more segments of society, might impose its values and ideals on others, either by propagation or by force. In sum, the assumption is that should governments not be neutral regarding the plurality of convictions that prevail in society, then their bias could generate intolerance.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

It is important because there is an inbuilt tension in liberalism between its commitment to autonomy and its inclination towards neutrality.

Perspectives