Should government be neutral "on the question of the good life, or of what gives value to life"?1 Some political theorists propose that governmental neutrality is a core commitment of any liberalism worth the name and a requirement of justice. For them, neutrality is the appropriate generalization of the ideal of religious tolerance. The state should be neutral in matters of religion, and neutral also in all controversies concerning the nature of the good or the ways in which it is valuable and worthwhile to live.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rawls and Feminism: What Should Feminists Make of Liberal Neutrality?Elizabeth Brake - 2004 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):293-309.
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]Richard Arneson - manuscript
Liberal Neutrality or Liberal Tolerance?Colin M. Macleod - 1997 - Law and Philosophy 16 (5):529 - 559.
The Impossibility of Political Neutrality.Noriaki Iwasa - 2010 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (29):147-155.
Why Liberal Neutralists Should Accept Educational Neutrality.Matt Sensat Waldren - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):71-83.
Implications of Liberal Neutrality for Environmental Policy.Cary Coglianese - 1998 - Environmental Ethics 20 (1):41-59.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads138 ( #34,374 of 2,168,629 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #61,319 of 2,168,629 )
How can I increase my downloads?