Abstract
AbstractThis chapter defends the perfectionist conception of justice against Matthew Kramer’s argument that perfectionist regimes that seek the edification of the citizenry are guilty of a meddlesome mentality, one akin in important respects to that of a village busybody. Put differently, the perfectionist state violates a moral requirement of self-restraint. In response, the author argues that this objection begs the question against perfectionist justice by assuming precisely what needs to be shown, namely that promoting the flourishing and edification of the citizenry falls outside the proper bounds of government. In other words, when one says that the perfectionist state meddles in matters that are none of its business or sticks its nose where it does not belong, one already assumes that the state has no duty to promote the flourishing and edification of the citizenry; but one cannot help oneself to this assumption because the question of whether the state has a duty to promote the flourishing and edification of the citizenry is precisely what is at stake in the debate between perfectionists and anti-perfectionist liberals.
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Reference374 articles.
1. Rawls, Mill, and the Puzzle of Political Liberalism;The Journal of Politics,2012
2. Ackerman, B., ‘Neutralities’, in R. B. Douglass et al. (eds), Liberalism and the Good (London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 29–43.
3. Should Opera Be Subsidized?;Dissent,1999