How Can a Liberal State be Both Neutral and Paternalistic
Roberto Merrill
Abstract
Roberto Merrill
Abstract
In this article I defend that liberal perfectionism, even when paternalistic, is compatible with state neutrality. I defend this compatibility as follows. First, I distinguish three types of neutrality. Then, I distinguish three types of paternalism. I then examine under what conditions neutrality and paternalism can be compatible. Finally, I argue that neutrality of consequences, which seems to be the most demanding version of neutrality, is also compatible with paternalism and will conclude by suggesting that the only way to make paternalism and neutrality incompatible is to require that neutrality encompasses at the same time neutral justifications, aims, and consequences.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In this article I defend that liberal perfectionism, even when paternalistic, is compatible with state neutrality. I defend this compatibility as follows. First, I distinguish three types of neutrality. Then, I distinguish three types of paternalism. I then examine under what conditions neutrality and paternalism can be compatible. Finally, I argue that neutrality of consequences, which seems to be the most demanding version of neutrality, is also compatible with paternalism and will conclude by suggesting that the only way to make paternalism and neutrality incompatible is to require that neutrality encompasses at the same time neutral justifications, aims, and consequences.
Key concepts: Paternalism, Neutrality, Law and economics, State (computer science), Positive economics, Political science, Economics, Law