This essay addresses the following question: should the state be neutral in relation to the good life? The main subject of this essay is about state neutrality. Those who are for state neutrality suggest that the state should not promote any perception of the good life. Because we do not have knowledge of what the “good life” means and consists of. Since we cannot agree on that question, the state should let everyone decide that question for themselves. Others who are against state neutrality believe that the state should promote perceptions that are good for mankind. Human nature determines what is good for man. We should also consider that Kalle's life choice does not harm Lisa. So, there are perceptions about the good life that is good and bad for man. The state should therefore not be neutral. My own main point is to criticize the idea of state neutrality with the idea that we have and can acquire knowledge about the good life. Perhaps not entirely through human nature alone, but it should be complemented by proven experience and science.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:umu-197371 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Haydari, Emily |
| Publisher | Umeå universitet, Institutionen för idé- och samhällsstudier |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds