Abstract
This paper examines three arguments that attempt to justify liberal neutrality. Firstly the type of neutrality between conceptions of the good that is sought by the arguments is explained. Then the contractarian procedure that is one of the premises of each of the arguments is presented. The remaining sections then examine the arguments, which are Thomas Nagel's appeal to epistemic restraint, Brian Barry's appeal to the uncertainty thesis, and John Rawls's appeal to the burdens of judgement. The arguments attempt to show how the contractarian procedure results in liberal neutrality. They do so by trying to show how no conception of the good can be acceptable to everyone due to the epistemological status of conceptions of the good. It is concluded that none of the arguments succeeds.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.