Evaluate Charles Taylor's arguments against neutralist liberalism

Résumé du document

Every society needs cohesion to survive. However, we are likely to have different views on how to implement and manage this cohesion. In this context, the state has a primary role regarding this task as it is often seen as the only alternative to anarchy. The question then arises as to the basis on which the state will govern, decide, and choose to lead its citizens. This thought over the state's role embodies the long-lasting debate between the liberal and the communitarian theory. On the one hand, liberalism places a great emphasis on individual liberty and rights. On the other hand, the communitarians focus on the values of community and the social properties of people. From then on, we could bring up the notion of state neutrality. Indeed, neutrality in the philosophical understanding means that the state does not influence or promote a certain way of life or a certain approach of the good life. Neutralist liberalism then asserts that the state should be neutral, as its actions should not favor anyone in the society. Charles Taylor, a political philosopher, who is engaged in political issues in Canada, stands against this view, though.

Extraits

[...] Here, the right overrides any attempt to foster a conception of the good. Dworkin raises the second point about the distribution of resources and opportunities, proposing an equal distribution of resources. This would mean that each individual would get the same share as the next one, even if he needs more to be satisfied[8]. Nevertheless, this thesis only holds in practice under certain conditions: first that the citizens start their lives on a strictly equal foot (materially and morally speaking), and second that the government manages the productive activity with the result that nobody is worse off. [...]

[...] Taylor argues that it is also helpful to society, in the sense that it helps promote new values and social claims within society, and helps to structure and to understand it. Therefore he also considers individual autonomy and education as important, because it lends itself to taking community seriously.[32] Nevertheless, Taylor is in favour of a secular state, especially when it comes to deal with religion: everybody must be able to believe in any religion. In these cases, he even sees neutrality as an important good. Finally, let us examine the core elements of Taylor's conception of a liberal state. [...]

[...] Philosophy Now Series Editor: John Sand p118 Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press p83 Michael Heyns, “Patriotism and Social Structure”, Potchefstroom university: http://www.wcp2003.org/Michael_Heyns.doc. Interview of Charles Taylor by Catherine Golliau, in Le Point magazine, N°1815, June 2007 Ruth Abbey, Charles Taylor, ed. Philosophy Now Series Editor: John Sand pp 135- 141 Edward Sankowski, “Liberalism, Communitarianism, and Moral Education”, University of Oklahoma: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES- Yearbook/1999/sankowski.asp Ruth Abbey, Charles Taylor, ed. Philosophy Now Series Editor: John Sand p118 Charles Taylor, Philosophical Arguments, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press pp192-193 ibid, p.201 Ruth Abbey, Charles Taylor, ed. [...]

[...] Then, how is Taylor conceiving the state's role regarding neutrality? First, he asks for a ‘politics of a common good' to replace the neutralist approach. In a communitarian society, and contrary the liberal vision, is essential that citizens are animated by a sense of a shared immediate common good (which cannot be reduced to individual possession.”[25] Then, in this case, all the pattern of people's preferences can be evaluated by the state, in order to provide a basis for a common conception of the good life. [...]

[...] On the other hand, Taylor supports his argumentation by saying that neutrality cannot in any way be fully implemented in reality. He even asserts that it is unrealistic; suggesting that in many “real-life” situations, state neutrality is threatened. It may be the case when the government takes decisions which actually reveal a different treatment of groups of people or interests: affirmative action, economic incentives etc.[19] Ruth Abbey sums up the idea: soon as governments formulate and implement public policy, and engage the public spending that accompanies it, some notion of the good is being acted We should note that it is especially hard for the state in a multicultural society, when it has to cope with different ways of life and cultures. [...]