This dissertation explores and defends a form of perfectionism, which I call ‘public value perfectionism’. It is an approach that emerges from Sen’s capability critique of Rawls’s doctrine of primary goods and I argue that this form of perfectionism is not only compatible with, but also demanded by, a general defence of liberal neutrality. It is designed to fulfill a demand of justice that is beyond the reach of neutralist tools, yet it belongs within a larger neutralist framework in virtue of being justified by the same types of reasons that support neutralism. One of the main justifications for state neutrality is that it can serve as a means to remove or reduce disadvantage imposed on vulnerable groups. I will argue that in the case of disability limited state perfectionism can serve as a means toward that same goal. The series of arguments that I make to defend public value perfectionism concern issues relevant to debates about neutrality and perfectionism, the metric of advantage, justice and disability, and health resource rationing. These issues each play a role in the argument I develop, which states, simplifying somewhat, that in order for society to make defensible rationing decisions about social spending that aims to reduce disability, we need an approach to advantage—i.e., public value perfectionism—that contains important elements of perfectionism and yet is grounded on neutralist considerations. / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2009-07-21 10:11:07.921

The dissertation examines in detail the concept of neutrality in political theory literature and assesses the arguments of the defenders and critics of Turkey’s laicism in light of such an examination. After showing the weaknesses and problems in the arguments of various political actors in Turkey, the dissertation defends “modus vivendi liberalism” as a possible solution for the conflicts about Turkey’s laicism. In that regard, the dissertation argues that certain aspects of liberal political theory can be appropriated for Turkish politics for the sake of ensuring stability and peace even if there might be problems with the possibility and desirability of neutrality. The dissertation also discusses what can constitute Turkey’s modus vivendi and offer certain ideas about what may and may not ensure stability and peace in Turkey.

Recreational drug use, whether publicly acknowledged or privately hidden, has long been a common activity within human societies. Though this comes with serious hazards, it also produces benefits, which often go unrecognized. Given the current prohibitory policies, it is important to consider whether such use ought to be restricted. I will do just that, focusing on whether recreational drug use can be part of a reasonable conception of the good life, as well as whether restrictions constitute an infringement on freedom. I will argue that, in moderation, recreational drug use constitutes a positive good for a large group of people, and that criminalization places an unfair burden upon these people, which breaches the liberal principle of neutrality.

A Justiça como Imparcialidade de Brian Barry propõe uma teoria de justiça imparcial como única solução legítima para uma sociedade encontrar princípios com os quais todos possam consentir. Essa concepção de justiça não pode impor aos indivíduos um comportamento de primeira-ordem. Ao contrário, deve se referir unicamente às instituições e estas devem acomodar as diversas concepções de Bem da sociedade. Se a sociedade for capaz de encontrar tais princípios, então será possível a vida em sociedade com tolerância mútua. Esta dissertação explora as razões de Barry para escolha dessa abordagem e aponta possíveis desafios não resolvidos por sua teoria. / Brian Barrys Justice as Impartiality conceives a theory of impartial justice as the only legitimated solution to a society who wants to find principles according to those everybody might consent. This theory should not impose a first-order behavior to individuals. Moreover, such concept of justice must be impartial in regard to individuals conceptions of good. This dissertation explores the reasons that led Barry to choose this approach, and suggests possible challenges unsolved by his theory.

A Justiça como Imparcialidade de Brian Barry propõe uma teoria de justiça imparcial como única solução legítima para uma sociedade encontrar princípios com os quais todos possam consentir. Essa concepção de justiça não pode impor aos indivíduos um comportamento de primeira-ordem. Ao contrário, deve se referir unicamente às instituições e estas devem acomodar as diversas concepções de Bem da sociedade. Se a sociedade for capaz de encontrar tais princípios, então será possível a vida em sociedade com tolerância mútua. Esta dissertação explora as razões de Barry para escolha dessa abordagem e aponta possíveis desafios não resolvidos por sua teoria. / Brian Barrys Justice as Impartiality conceives a theory of impartial justice as the only legitimated solution to a society who wants to find principles according to those everybody might consent. This theory should not impose a first-order behavior to individuals. Moreover, such concept of justice must be impartial in regard to individuals conceptions of good. This dissertation explores the reasons that led Barry to choose this approach, and suggests possible challenges unsolved by his theory.

During the spring of 2014 two midwives in Sweden were denied work because they refused to perform abortion on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Shortly after the health authorities were sued for discrimination. The purpose of this study is to examine whether there should be room for exemptions based on one’s conscience in a neutral liberal state. This essay applies Cécile Labordes theory of individual exceptions and liberal justices on the midwives’ case in Sweden to perform this purpose. Should, or could, they have been exempted from performing abortion and thus be allowed to work as midwives? This essay’s analysis demonstrates that the current case is not compatible with justice and there is thus no room for exemptions on a national level. However, there should be space for exemptions for cases that are compatible with justice, in order for all citizens in a pluralistic society to live in accordance with their own conception of the good.

This study aims to assess the Swedish national value framework (Svenska statliga värdegrunden) in light of liberal multicultural theory, with a particular focus on the perceived conflict between theoretical principles and actual political practices, exemplified by Swedish authorities' participation in Stockholm Pride. To achieve this, an ideological analysis applies three contemporary liberal multicultural theories to evaluate the alignment of the Swedish national value framework with these theories. The subsequent examination of Swedish authorities' involvement in Stockholm Pride seeks to determine whether such participation is endorsed or discouraged by the identified theoretical framework. The analysis supports a fundamental premise of this study – that state authorities' active support for LGBTQ+ rights and participation in Stockholm Pride is not only acceptable but also encouraged by liberal multicultural theory. Importantly, this endorsement does not compromise the principles of state neutrality integral to liberal ideals.