State Neutrality, Indirect Perfectionism and Moral Fallibilism

Abstract

My aim in this paper is to analyze two consequentialist arguments in support of the liberal conception of state neutrality. Both arguments, proposed by Eduardo Rivera López and Will Kymlicka, combine a moral conception of rational interests of persons with an epistemological thesis: moral fallibilism. I shall argue that such arguments are unsuccessful as objections against perfectionist policies. My main thesis is that they involve a conceptual inconsistency. The fallibilist thesis is irrelevant in practice, because it affects any set of beliefs upon which we can base our decisions and actions, and thus, can support objections against all policies of the state, whether perfectionist or not. Unfortunately, the only way to avoid this conclusion involves a commitment with a skeptic position that undermines the argument’s inner consistency.