Fundamentals

Liberal antiperfectionism: state neutrality, pluralism, and limits

By Daniel Sardá · Published on July 12, 2026

2 min read291 words

What liberal antiperfectionism claims, how it relates to state neutrality, and the main objections it faces.

What liberal antiperfectionism claims

Liberal antiperfectionism broadly holds that the state should not use its power to impose or privilege a controversial conception of the good life merely because officials consider it superior. In plural societies, reasonable disagreement persists about religion, virtue, family, culture, and fulfillment. This is a family of views rather than one doctrine.

Neutrality does not mean having no values

An antiperfectionist state still upholds political values such as rights, legal equality, freedom of conscience, and fair cooperation. It is therefore not neutral about everything. The constraint concerns making a particular ideal of the good compulsory for citizens who can reasonably reject it.

Three versions of neutrality

Neutrality of aims asks the state not to pursue virtue according to a disputed ideal. Neutrality of justification requires shareable political reasons. Neutrality of effects seeks not to favor ways of life, but this is difficult because almost every policy has unequal effects.

What it does not imply

Antiperfectionism does not require tolerating violence, harm, or discrimination. Nor does it automatically prohibit public education, health policy, or cultural support. The question is how these policies are justified and whether they leave genuine space for different lives compatible with others’ rights.

Objections and replies

Perfectionists argue that every policy promotes goods and that government can sustain valuable capacities and practices. Antiperfectionists reply that coercive power demands special restraint amid disagreement. The debate requires specifying neutrality’s object, scope, and standard of legitimacy.

Application is especially difficult when policy creates background conditions rather than direct prohibitions. Tax rules, school curricula, public funding, and urban design can advantage some choices without explicitly banning others. An antiperfectionist analysis therefore examines purpose, justification, coercive burden, and availability of reasonable alternatives instead of looking only for formal neutrality.