Hello! Welcome to your next lesson.
In our last session, we analyzed perfectionist theories, exploring the powerful idea that the purpose of the state is to promote an objective conception of human flourishing. We saw this view, with roots in Plato and Aristotle, in direct conflict with the modern liberal ideal of a state that remains neutral about the good life.
Today, we will delve deeper into this fundamental conflict. Our learning outcome is to distinguish the liberal ideal of state neutrality from state perfectionism. This distinction is not merely academic; it represents one of the most critical forks in the road for designing the "macro-level architecture" of a society. It forces us to ask: should the state be a neutral umpire enforcing fair rules, or an active coach trying to make its citizens better people?
1. The Liberal Ideal of State Neutrality
The idea that the state should be neutral regarding different conceptions of the good life is a cornerstone of modern liberalism. Its origins lie in the classical liberal response to the wars of religion—the conviction that for people with diverse and deeply held beliefs to live together peacefully, the state must not take sides.
The Classical Liberal Foundation
Classical liberals argue that the primary political value is individual liberty. The state's role is not to impose a vision of the good, but to create a secure framework within which individuals can pursue their own.
Classical Liberalism Explained: What It Is, What It Means
To see this view in its clearest form, let's watch a short video from Learn Liberty that outlines the core principles of classical liberalism.
Please watch from the beginning to 01:50, and then the final clip from 06:18 to 06:41. Focus on these core tenets: Liberty as the primary standard for judging government action. The individual as more important than the collective. Skepticism of power and the belief that the individual is the best judge of their own interests. The resulting principle of limited government, whose purpose is to protect life, liberty, and property.
This view gives us a minimal state, often called a "night-watchman state," whose functions are strictly limited. Any action beyond protecting individuals from harm (the "harm principle") is seen as an illegitimate overreach.
Philosophical Justifications for Neutrality
Contemporary political philosophers have developed more sophisticated arguments for state neutrality. They don't just argue for a minimal state; they argue for a principled constraint on the reasons the state can use to justify its actions.
Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Perfectionism, which we consulted last lesson, provides a precise breakdown of the 'Principle of State Neutrality.'
Please read subsection 3.1, 'The Principle of State Neutrality.' Pay close attention to the three (and later, a fourth) different formulations of the neutrality constraint. This shows the different ways philosophers have tried to formalize the idea.
As the reading shows, neutrality can be about:
- Consent: The state can't promote a good unless people consent.
- Consensus: The state can't promote a good unless there's a societal consensus.
- Public Justification: The state can't justify its actions by appealing to controversial ideas about the good life. The reasons must be "public" or shareable among all reasonable citizens.
This third idea, public justification, is central to most modern liberal theories. The philosopher Gerald Gaus, for instance, argues that respect for persons as free and equal moral agents requires that any coercive state action must be justifiable to every rational citizen. If a law is based on a specific religious or philosophical doctrine that a reasonable person could reject, then imposing that law fails to respect their moral autonomy.
2. State Perfectionism: The Rejection of Neutrality
Perfectionism, as we saw, starts from the opposite premise. Its central claim is that a state that is neutral about the good life is a state that has abdicated its most important responsibility.
Let's break down the key points of contrast:
| Topic | The Liberal Neutralist View | The State Perfectionist View |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the State | To provide a fair framework of rights and liberties within which individuals can pursue their own chosen conception of the good. | To create a society where citizens can and do lead flourishing, objectively valuable lives. |
| The Good Life | The nature of the good life is a matter for private judgment. The state must be neutral between competing conceptions. | There is an objective account of the good life (e.g., based on human nature, reason, excellence). The state has a role in promoting it. |
| Respect for Persons | Respecting people means refraining from imposing a conception of the good on them that they do not share. It means respecting their capacity to choose their own life plan. | Respecting people means treating them as beings for whom flourishing matters. A state that is indifferent to whether its citizens lead valuable or worthless lives is arguably failing to show them proper respect. |
| Liberty/Autonomy | Liberty is a constraint on state action. It is a "negative" right of non-interference, carving out a private sphere where the state cannot tread. | Autonomy is a goal of state action. It is a central component of a flourishing life that must be actively promoted. This requires not just non-interference, but also the presence of valuable options to choose from. |
Coercion and "Indirect Coercion"
A major fault line is the issue of coercion. For the neutralist, using the state's coercive power (e.g., through taxation) to fund a project based on a controversial view of the good (like subsidizing opera) is illegitimate. It forces some citizens to pay for others' preferences.
Perfectionists have different responses to this.
- Classical Perfectionists (like Plato or Aristotle) were less concerned with coercion if it served the ultimate goal of making citizens virtuous.
- Liberal Perfectionists (like Joseph Raz) argue that some "coercion," like discouraging harmful or worthless options, is justified because it ultimately enhances people's autonomy by curating their choice environment.
- Moderate Perfectionists draw a crucial distinction between different types of coercion.
To explore this, let's look at an argument for a "moderate perfectionism" that tries to find a middle path.
Liberal Neutrality and Moderate Perfectionism
The article 'Liberal Neutrality and Moderate Perfectionism' by Franz Fan-lun Mang offers a nuanced defense of a limited form of perfectionism. It directly addresses the problem of coercion.
Please read two sections from this article: Start with the section 'The Main Features of Moderate Perfectionism.' Focus on the distinction between coercive and non-coercive (or indirectly coercive) measures. Then, read the section 'Indirect Coercion and Citizens’ Welfare.' This is a key argument. Focus on how the author justifies the 'indirect coercion' of taxation for perfectionist ends on the grounds of public welfare.
Mang's argument highlights a critical distinction. Forcing someone to attend an art course is direct coercion that violates their autonomy. Using a small portion of their tax money to fund an art museum is indirect coercion. Mang argues this is justifiable if the state pursues a pluralistic and holistic set of policies that promote a wide variety of goods (art, science, sport, etc.), such that the overall system benefits everyone's welfare, even if they don't value every single policy. This is a very different vision from the strict neutralist who would see any such use of tax funds as illegitimate.
Test your understanding!
A government is considering a "sin tax" on sugary drinks and junk food. The stated goals are to reduce obesity and improve public health. How would the following figures argue about this policy?
- A strict liberal neutralist (like Gaus)
- A classical perfectionist (like Aristotle)
- A moderate perfectionist (like Mang)
Show answer
-
A strict liberal neutralist would likely oppose the tax. They would argue that while health is a value many people share, it's not the only one. Some people might reasonably prioritize the pleasure of eating what they want over long-term health. By taxing junk food, the state is taking a side in this value conflict. It is imposing a penalty on one conception of the good life (one that prioritizes pleasure or convenience) in favor of another (one that prioritizes health). This is a paternalistic use of coercive power that fails to respect individuals as the best judges of their own interests.
-
A classical perfectionist would almost certainly support the tax. For Aristotle, the good life involves virtuous activity, including the virtue of temperance (moderation in bodily pleasures). A society where people systematically make intemperate choices that damage their physical well-being is failing to flourish. The state's laws and policies function to habituate citizens toward virtue. A tax that discourages vice (gluttony, intemperance) and nudges people toward a healthier, more moderate state is perfectly aligned with the state's fundamental purpose of making citizens good.
-
A moderate perfectionist would likely support the tax, but with a specific justification. They would not claim to know the single best way to live. Instead, they would appeal to a "qualified judgment" such as: "A diet high in sugar and processed food is harmful to the health and well-being of most, if not all, people." This is a widely accepted, non-controversial claim. The tax is an "indirectly coercive" measure that nudges behavior in a direction that promotes public welfare without banning the products outright. As long as this is part of a holistic set of policies promoting welfare, and the revenue perhaps funds public health initiatives, it's a justifiable perfectionist policy.
Conclusion
We have now drawn a sharp distinction between two fundamentally different conceptions of the state's purpose. One is a neutral arbiter, the other a promoter of excellence.
Key Takeaways:
- State Neutrality: This liberal ideal holds that the state must not justify its actions based on, or aim to promote, any particular conception of the good life. It is grounded in respect for individual autonomy and the reality of reasonable pluralism. Its primary instruments are principles like the harm principle and public justification.
- State Perfectionism: This is the view that the state has a legitimate, even primary, role in promoting the well-being and flourishing of its citizens, based on an objective account of the good. It rejects neutrality as an abdication of political responsibility.
- Points of Distinction: The two ideals differ fundamentally on the purpose of the state, the status of "the good," the meaning of respect for persons, the role of liberty, and the legitimate scope of coercion.
- A Spectrum of Views: The opposition is not a simple binary. There are "moderate" or "liberal" versions of perfectionism that try to promote objective goods (like autonomy or health) using less coercive means, creating a spectrum of possibilities between the two poles of pure neutrality and comprehensive perfectionism.
Preview of the Next Lesson:
Both the perfectionist and the communitarian positions we've studied offer substantive answers to what is just—they ground it in a specific vision of the good life. The neutralist liberal, in turn, tries to find substantive principles (like liberty and equality) that don't depend on any single conception of the good. But what if agreement on any substantive outcome is out of reach? In our next lesson, we will explore a radically different approach. We will explain procedural justice as the fairness of decision-making processes, sometimes independent of outcomes. This shifts the focus from achieving the right answer to using the right method to arrive at a decision we can all accept, even when we disagree about its content.