Cambridge University Press (1997)
|Abstract||Many people, including many contemporary philosophers, believe that the state has no business trying to improve people's characters, elevating their tastes, or preventing them from living degraded lives. They believe that governments should remain absolutely neutral when it comes to the consideration of competing conceptions of the good. One fundamental aim of George Sher's book is to show that this view is indefensible. A second complementary aim is to articulate a conception of the good that is worthy of promotion by the state. The first part of the book analyses attempts to ground the neutrality thesis in the value of autonomy, respect for autonomy, the dangers of a non-neutral state, and scepticism about the good. The second part defends an objective conception of the good which remains sensitive to some of the considerations that make subjectivism attractive.|
|Keywords||Political ethics Values Autonomy State, The|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$79.95 new (37% off) $130.33 used (8% off) $141.00 direct from Amazon Amazon page|
|Call number||JA79.S42 1997|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thaddeus Metz (2001). Respect for Persons and Perfectionist Politics. Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (4):417–442.
Thomas Hurka (1998). George Sher, Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism and Politics:Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism and Politics. Ethics 109 (1):187-190.
Richard Arneson, Justice and Human Good Philosophy 224 Gerald Doppelt and Richard Arneson Spring, 2002 Wednesdays 2:30-5:20 in the Phil Dept Seminar Room, Hss 7077. [REVIEW]
Noriaki Iwasa (2010). The Impossibility of Political Neutrality. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (29):147-155.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #38,024 of 722,787 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,787 )
How can I increase my downloads?