Liberal Neutrality Argument Analysis
In this essay I will argue that liberal neutrality is necessary to maintain optimal utility in a multicultural society. Benjamin L. Berger argues that liberal neutrality and legal tolerance cater to the dominant culture, I agree with this, however I will argue that the dominant culture should be prioritized in order to achieve the maximal amount of happiness for the aggregate of society. Berger states in his piece The Cultural Limits of Legal Tolerance that multicultural societies exhibit tolerance to minority cultures, this tolerance is enforced by legal institutions which provide guaranteed rights to civilians (Berger, 136). Berger argues that this legal tolerance that we value in multicultural societies is a façade, because the dominant
…show more content…
The sacrifice of minority rights in the pursuit of a happier majority is the obvious route for a utilitarian. The law must be partial to the dominant culture to ensure that the dominant culture can’t be toppled because this would cause a decrease in happiness for the majority of people in a society.
The counterarguments that I predict arising against the utilitarian view I have presented are twofold. The first argument would likely be that the trampling of minority rights is immoral. Followed by the argument that more people would be happy if we afforded minority cultures special rights to prevent the disenfranchisement of their rights by liberal neutrality and legal tolerance, therefore making them equal to the dominant culture. I agree that the trampling of minority rights is immoral, however a utilitarian does not take morality into consideration when calculating aggregate happiness. The goal of the utilitarian viewpoint is to ensure the greatest number of people the greatest amount of happiness. If society is comprised of 90% people who follow the dominant culture, those people are the majority and in the utilitarian’s eyes, the people that should be kept happy. An outcome of Berger’s theory could result in the transformation of the system to allow for minority cultures to operate on a similar level to the dominant culture, however, I do not believe this is
The sacrifice of minority rights in the pursuit of a happier majority is the obvious route for a utilitarian. The law must be partial to the dominant culture to ensure that the dominant culture can’t be toppled because this would cause a decrease in happiness for the majority of people in a society.
The counterarguments that I predict arising against the utilitarian view I have presented are twofold. The first argument would likely be that the trampling of minority rights is immoral. Followed by the argument that more people would be happy if we afforded minority cultures special rights to prevent the disenfranchisement of their rights by liberal neutrality and legal tolerance, therefore making them equal to the dominant culture. I agree that the trampling of minority rights is immoral, however a utilitarian does not take morality into consideration when calculating aggregate happiness. The goal of the utilitarian viewpoint is to ensure the greatest number of people the greatest amount of happiness. If society is comprised of 90% people who follow the dominant culture, those people are the majority and in the utilitarian’s eyes, the people that should be kept happy. An outcome of Berger’s theory could result in the transformation of the system to allow for minority cultures to operate on a similar level to the dominant culture, however, I do not believe this is