Hello! Welcome to the ninth lesson in our course on justice.
In our last session, we dove into Alasdair MacIntyre's compelling argument that justice is a concept entirely dependent on specific traditions and communities. We saw how the loss of a shared telos, or purpose, led modern moral discourse into what he calls "emotivism," making it seem impossible to rationally agree on what is just. MacIntyre's solution was to re-ground justice in the shared life of a community.
This leads us to a crucial question: If justice is indeed tied to a conception of the good life, what is the proper role of the state in this? Should political institutions be actively involved in cultivating human excellence? Today, we will explore this very question.
Our learning outcome is to analyze perfectionist theories that ground justice in the state's role in promoting human excellence or a specific conception of the good life. We will see how this idea, with roots in ancient philosophy, directly challenges the modern liberal ideal of state neutrality and offers a powerful, if controversial, vision of politics.
1. What is Perfectionism?
At its heart, perfectionism is a family of theories built on a simple but powerful premise: there are objectively better and worse ways for a human life to go. It posits an objective account of the good life—often described in terms of human flourishing, excellence, or the development of essential human capacities—and argues that our moral and political life should be oriented towards achieving that good.
This stands in stark contrast to subjectivist views (where the good is simply what you desire or enjoy) and the core tenets of many liberal theories.
To get a precise handle on the key concepts, let's turn to a foundational text.
Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, 'Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy,' provides an excellent overview. We'll start with the sections that define the view and distinguish its main variants.
Please read the introduction and Section 1, 'Perfectionism and Value Theory,' including subsections 1.1 and 1.2. Focus on: The definition of perfectionism as an 'objective account of the good.' The distinction between 'human nature perfectionism' (developing essential capacities) and 'objective goods perfectionism' (achieving a list of goods). How perfectionism can be compatible with value pluralism.
As the reading makes clear, perfectionism isn't necessarily a monistic doctrine demanding one single path for everyone. A plausible perfectionism can recognize a plurality of excellent ways of life—some people might flourish through intellectual pursuits, others through artistic creation, and still others through athletic achievement. The key is that it distinguishes these valuable pursuits from ways of life that are considered base, worthless, or degrading, even if someone desires them.
2. The Classical Blueprint: Plato and Aristotle
The most influential perfectionist theories come from ancient Greece. For both Plato and Aristotle, the idea that the state should be neutral about the good life would have been nonsensical. For them, the entire purpose of the political community (polis) was to make its citizens virtuous and enable them to flourish.
Aristotle: Politics for the Good Life
Aristotle's ethics are grounded in the concept of Eudaimonia, often translated as "flourishing" or "the good life." He argued this is the highest good for humans and consists in exercising our unique capacity for reason excellently over a complete life. This is achieved by cultivating both intellectual virtues (like wisdom) and character virtues (like courage and temperance).
Crucially, he saw this not as a private project, but a political one.
PHILOSOPHY - The Good Life: Aristotle [HD]
This video from Wireless Philosophy concisely explains Aristotle's concept of Eudaimonia and, most importantly for us, connects it directly to the function of the state and its laws.
Please watch from the beginning to 05:20. Pay close attention to the second half, where the speaker explains Aristotle's view that the state exists 'not for the purpose of allowing people to live, but for the purpose of allowing them to live well.' Note the role of laws in habituating people toward virtue.
Aristotle provides a clear model of "human nature perfectionism." The state's role is to create the conditions—through education and law—that help individuals develop their rational nature and become virtuous. Justice, in this view, is inseparable from creating a society that promotes this specific vision of human excellence.
Plato: Architecting the Perfect State
Plato's vision in The Republic is an even more radical and comprehensive form of state perfectionism. He designs an entire city-state, the Kallipolis, with the explicit goal of achieving justice by ensuring every part of the city—and every citizen within it—performs its proper function to the highest degree of excellence. This is a form of macro-level societal architecture designed to instantiate a particular conception of the good.
Plato - The Republic | Political Philosophy
This video on Plato's 'Republic' details the structure of his ideal city and the philosophical justification behind it. It's a prime example of a state architected entirely around a perfectionist goal.
Please watch the following segments: 10:32 - 12:21: On the structure of the Kallipolis and its three classes. 12:21 - 14:35: On the strict control of art and education to cultivate specific virtues. 17:10 - 18:51: On the justification for philosopher-kings, whose knowledge of the 'objective good' qualifies them to rule. Focus on how every element of the state is designed to promote a specific ideal of human character and social harmony.
Plato's state is perfectionist to its core. It doesn't just encourage virtue; it engineers society to produce it, censoring art, scripting education, and entrusting power exclusively to experts who have, through rigorous training, grasped the objective "Form of the Good." This is the ultimate expression of grounding justice in the state's role to promote a specific—and in this case, singular—conception of excellence.
3. The Central Conflict: Perfectionism vs. State Neutrality
The classical vision of a state dedicated to promoting virtue is the primary target of modern liberalism. The most influential rival to political perfectionism is the principle of state neutrality. This principle holds that the state should not favor, promote, or base its laws on any particular conception of the good life.
Why? Because in a pluralistic society, reasonable people hold fundamentally different and irreconcilable beliefs about religion, philosophy, and morality. For the state to take a side, liberals argue, is to fail to respect all its citizens as free and equal. It illegitimately uses coercive power to impose one group's values on everyone.
Perfectionists reject this principle. They argue that a commitment to neutrality is not neutral at all; it often results in a debased public culture and requires the state to stand by while valuable forms of life wither and worthless ones proliferate.
Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy
Let's return to the SEP article to analyze this crucial conflict. These sections lay out the arguments for state neutrality and the perfectionist response.
Please read Section 3, 'Perfectionism in Politics,' and subsection 3.1, 'The Principle of State Neutrality.' This is the core of today's analysis. Focus on understanding the different formulations of state neutrality and the main perfectionist counter-arguments summarized at the end of 3.1.
Test your understanding!
Imagine a government is debating whether to provide large public subsidies for institutions like national orchestras, opera houses, and art galleries. How would a perfectionist and a proponent of state neutrality justify their opposing positions on this policy?
Show answer
A perfectionist would likely support the subsidies. They would argue that engaging with high art (like classical music and fine art) is an objectively valuable activity that contributes to human flourishing. It cultivates aesthetic sensibility, intellectual depth, and emotional complexity—all components of an excellent life. The state, therefore, has a legitimate role, and perhaps even a duty, to promote these valuable pursuits and ensure they don't wither away due to market pressures. They would argue that a society that supports such excellence is a better society for everyone, enhancing collective self-respect.
A proponent of state neutrality would likely oppose the subsidies, or at least be very wary of their justification. They would argue that using taxpayer money to fund opera (which some people love) but not, say, monster truck rallies (which other people love) involves the state making a judgment about which lifestyles are better. This violates neutrality. It forces citizens who don't value opera to subsidize a conception of the good they don't share. The state should remain a neutral arbiter, allowing citizens to spend their own money on the cultural pursuits they value, without the government taking a side on what constitutes "high" or "low" culture.
4. Liberal Perfectionism: A Modern Synthesis?
The conflict between state neutrality and perfectionism seems stark. But is it possible to bridge the gap? Some of the most interesting work in this area comes from thinkers who try to develop a liberal perfectionism. They accept the perfectionist premise that the state should promote the good life, but they argue that the good life itself requires liberal values like autonomy and individual liberty.
Autonomy as a Perfectionist Good
Thinkers like Joseph Raz argue that autonomy—the ability to be the author of your own life—is a central component of human flourishing. But meaningful autonomy requires having a range of valuable options to choose from. A life spent choosing between trivial or degrading options is not a flourishing one.
From this perspective, the state has a perfectionist duty to ensure citizens have access to worthwhile options (e.g., in career, relationships, leisure) and the capacities to choose among them well. This view can justify state action that discourages worthless options and promotes valuable ones, not to be paternalistic in a crude sense, but to create the conditions for valuable autonomous life.
Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy
The SEP article again provides a sharp analysis of this sophisticated move, particularly in its discussion of the harm principle and autonomy.
Please read subsection 3.4, 'The Harm Principle.' Focus on how thinkers like Mill and Raz reinterpret liberty and autonomy not as constraints on perfectionism, but as central perfectionist values themselves.
Perfectionism within Public Reason
A more recent and highly original approach comes from Collis Tahzib. He attempts a direct synthesis of perfectionism and the political liberalism of John Rawls. As you know from Module 3, Rawls argued for principles of justice derived from a neutral standpoint (the Original Position). Tahzib modifies this framework to generate a perfectionist conclusion.
He argues that we should conceive of society as a "fair striving for human flourishing" and that parties in the Original Position would choose a "Principle of Perfection" as a requirement of justice.
Introduction to the Symposium on A Perfectionist Theory of Justice
This article introduces Collis Tahzib's 'A Perfectionist Theory of Justice,' which is at the cutting edge of this debate. It shows how a perfectionist principle can be derived from a Rawlsian-style framework.
Please read the following sections of this short article: The paragraph starting 'Liberal perfectionists, in contrast...' and the three following paragraphs, setting up the problem and Tahzib's proposed solution. The section describing the four principles of justice, including the 'principle of perfection.' The following two paragraphs, defining the 'freestanding conception of human flourishing.' The section starting 'If Tahzib’s first major innovation...' explaining his perfectionist account of public reason. Focus on Tahzib's key moves: adding a 'principle of perfection' to Rawls's principles of justice, and defining a conception of flourishing ('enjoyment of moral, intellectual and artistic excellence') that he argues is compatible with public reason.
Tahzib's project is a bold attempt to have the best of both worlds: a state committed to promoting an objective good, but one that is justified in terms that all reasonable citizens can supposedly accept. It redefines what counts as a "public reason" to include certain claims about human flourishing, directly challenging the anti-perfectionist assumptions of mainstream liberal theory.
Conclusion
Today we've analyzed perfectionist theories, which ground justice in the state's active role in promoting human excellence. This stands as a major alternative to the communitarianism we saw last lesson and the libertarian and liberal theories we've previously covered. By rejecting state neutrality, perfectionism forces a direct confrontation with the question of what politics is fundamentally for: Is it merely a framework for peaceful coexistence among people with different values, or is it a collective enterprise aimed at achieving a shared, objective good?
Key Takeaways:
- Perfectionism is the view that politics should be concerned with promoting an objective account of human flourishing or excellence.
- Classical Perfectionism, exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, saw the state's primary purpose as the cultivation of virtue in its citizens.
- The main modern rival to perfectionism is the principle of state neutrality, which argues the state must not favor any particular conception of the good life due to reasonable pluralism.
- Liberal Perfectionists attempt to resolve this conflict by arguing that liberal values like autonomy are themselves key components of a flourishing life, which the state should promote.
- Modern Syntheses, like that of Collis Tahzib, seek to build perfectionist principles directly into a framework of public reason, arguing that a commitment to flourishing is a requirement of justice itself.
Preview of the Next Lesson:
Perfectionism offers one answer to the problem of deep disagreement in society: the state should pick the correct conception of the good and promote it. But what if that's not possible or desirable? In our next lesson, we will explore a completely different approach. We will explain procedural justice as the fairness of decision-making processes, sometimes independent of outcomes. Instead of trying to agree on what is substantively good or just, proceduralism suggests we should focus on creating fair procedures for making decisions when we disagree.