Abstract

The debate between liberal contractualists and political perfectionists has recently changed its focus: now, the most important issue is no longer the problem of neutrality of justification but the practical problem of comprehensive inclusion of marginalized social groups. This paper argues that the contractualists′ principle of neutrality is incompatible with the principle of inclusion. The second thesis to be defended is that perfectionism is only able to assert its constructive position as a philosophy of inclusion as long as it is not restricted to a vague, partial theory of the good, but is based on a comprehensive moral ideal that recognizes individuals as equals in their diversity