Advertisement

Ratio Legis pp 119-136 | Cite as

Nonconsequential Conception of Neutrality

  • Wojciech Ciszewski
Chapter

Abstract

In the paper, I focus on the nonconsequential conception of state neutrality. I claim that we can distinguish three such conceptions: justificatory neutrality, intentional neutrality, and expressive neutrality. Each of them is based on a different understanding of the rationale of an action. The idea of justificatory neutrality provides a constraint on the types of reasons that may legitimately support political decisions. Intentional neutrality refers to considerations that move political decision makers. Expressive neutrality states that the most important aspect of a political action is an attitude that this action expresses. The aim of my research is twofold. I would like, first, to clarify the meaning and distinctiveness of each conception and, second, to propose the defensible variant of state neutrality principle drawing on this classification.

Keywords

State neutrality principle Political perfectionism Conceptions of the good Legislative intent Expressivism 

References

  1. Anderson ES, Pildes R (2000) Expressive theories of law: a general restatement. Univ Pa Law Rev 148:1503–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson RJ (1990) Neutrality and utility. Can J Philos 20:215–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arneson RJ (2000) Perfectionism and politics. Ethics 111(2000):37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird C (1996) Mutual respect and neutral justification. Ethics 107(1996):62–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brighouse H (1995) Neutrality, publicity, and state funding of the arts. Philos Public Aff 24:35–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caney S (1991) Consequentialist defences of state neutrality. Philos Q 165:457–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan J (2000) Legitimacy, unanimity, and perfectionism. Philos Public Aff 29:5–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couto A (2014) Liberal perfectionism. De Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin R (1986) A matter of principle. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisgruber CL, Sager LG (2007) Religious freedom and the constitution. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman S (2007) Rawls. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenawalt K (1995) Private consciences and public reasons. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koppelman A (2013) Defending American religious neutrality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Kramer M (2017) Liberalism with excellence. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laborde C (2013) Political liberalism and religion: on separation and establishment. J Polit Philos 21:67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laegaard S (2013) Secular religious establishment. A framework for discussing the compatibility of institutional religious establishment with political secularism. Philos Public Issues 3:119–157Google Scholar
  17. Laegaard S (2017) What’s the problem with symbolic religious establishment. The alienation and symbolic equality accounts. In: Laborde C, Bardon A (eds) Religion in liberal political philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Nussbaum M (2008) Liberty of conscience: in Defense of America’s tradition of religious equality. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Patten A (2014) Equal recognition. The moral foundation of minority rights. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Quong J (2011) Liberalism without perfection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Rawls J (2000) Justice as fairness: a restatement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith S (2001) Expressivist jurisprudence and the depletion of meaning. Md Law Rev 60Google Scholar
  25. Thomson JJ (1993) Self-defense. Philos Public Aff 20:283–310Google Scholar
  26. Vallier K (2011) Against public reason liberalism's accessibility requirement. J Moral Philos 8:366–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waldron J (1989) Autonomy and perfectionism in Raz’ morality of freedom. South Calif Law Rev 62(1989):1097–1153Google Scholar
  28. Wall S (1998) Liberalism, perfectionism and restraint. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Court Rulings

  1. Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).Google Scholar
  2. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).Google Scholar
  3. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wojciech Ciszewski
    • 1
  1. 1.Jagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations