Liberal Neutrality?

D

Despotic

Registered Member
Been doing some reading lately, and I've come across an apparent paradox in liberal theory, namely can a liberal state ever truly be neutral? Neutral in the sense that it values all concieved conceptions of the good life as equal. At face value here, obviously not, insofar as a conception of the good must be justice respecting and abide by a basic set of rights and liberties.

I believe that a liberal cannot be truly 'neutral' or 'state anti-perfectionist', but whats a liberal to do in the case of illiberal societies, like ones that refuse to educate their children, or confine women to the home? Do liberals have an obligation to impose basic education on these societies so that people will be staying as a result of free choice (and in doing so act illiberally), or do they let it slide and allow for it (and not act by their convictions)?
Thoughts?
 
Theoretical liberalism? It's that wild and crazy thing coming from the ivory tower by people in contemporary times like John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. It produces statements that explain a neutral state as "a state which does not justify its actions on the basis of the intrinsic superiority or inferiority of conceptions of the good life, and which does not deliberately attempt to influence people's judgements of the value of these different conceptions"

A neutral state values the individuals right to be self-determining as long as their desired way of life is justice respecting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top