چکیده:
One of the fundamental concepts that divides thinkers who speak within the framework of liberalism into different groups is autonomy and its limits and loopholes. Among these, one can mention the division between supporters of state neutrality and perfectionism, or in other words, proponents of non-intervention versus state intervention regarding different conceptions of the good life, which places liberal thinkers into two different camps in terms of the boundaries they set. 'Dworkin' builds his theory of equality on two principles: equal concern and respect, and special responsibility, and derives state neutrality and autonomy from these two principles. Like many thinkers who support state neutrality, he also considers autonomy to play an important role; however, he does not subscribe to absolute autonomy and sets limits for it. He distinguishes between autonomy and authenticity and considers a more limited circle of authenticity for 'autonomy.' While opposing the adoption of paternalistic policies by the state, Dworkin does not entirely reject state intervention in various spheres of political and social life and considers such interventions to be somewhat necessary and unavoidable. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the present article critically examines the concept of autonomy and its position in Dworkin's intellectual system and attempts to answer the question of what position autonomy and, consequently, neutrality hold in Dworkin's thought. Ultimately, this article concludes that although the limitation of autonomy in his views, especially regarding equality in resources, is greater than he admits, a paternalistic outlook is visible in parts of his theory of resource equality.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Article: Research Critique of the Idea of Government Neutrality in the Views of "Ronald Dworkin" * Afshin Khakbaz ** Seyyed Alireza Hosseini Beheshti *** 1 Seyyed Ali Mahmoudi Abstract One of the fundamental concepts that divides thinkers who speak within the framework of liberalism into different groups is self-governance and its limits and boundaries.
Proponents of the principle of government neutrality base their arguments on the defense of autonomy and individualism, considering these two to be the essence of liberalism, and on this basis, they place perfectionism in conflict with liberalism.
Charles Larmore (1996), in "Patterns of Moral Complexity," says that the reason for the need for government neutrality is the unavoidable plurality present in liberal societies and many of the functions of government, which in addition to protecting life and property, include promoting freedom and equality 1.
Raz (1994), who is a prominent perfectionist theorist and a critic of government neutrality, bases his critique of the principle of neutrality on the logical gap between government neutrality and moral pluralism, and by proposing the concept of perfectionist liberalism, he attempts to introduce perfectionism as a supporter of self-determination and individual liberties by providing perfectionist arguments in defense of personal freedoms and self-determination.
(
, 
, 
)
