Liberalism and Contested Conceptions of the Good: The Limits of Neutrality

Abstract

The view that the state should be neutral in its treatment of people holding controversial conceptions of the good life has become widespread in recent liberal political theory. I argue that the notion of neutrality found in much of this theory is overly broad. I specify the conditions under which neutral justifications of state actions are required for reasons based in moral egalitarian premises that the neutralists and I share. The main flaw in neutralist liberalism has been in not adequately describing what it means to hold--or to reject--a conception of the good life. On closer inspection, we see that not all such conceptions demand the same degree of neutrality on the part of the state. Moreover, nonneutral justifications for many state policies need not cause the moral harm neutralists fear.