John Rawls: Liberal Neutrality and Subsidizing Art

Abstract

Like Dworkin, Rawls allows state support for art, while at the same time arguing for state neutrality. In order to be neutral, this state support is only legitimate if there is a unanimous consensus about the value of art and about state support. However, taking into account reasonable pluralism, this consensus is an impossible aim and this is why Rawls’s argumentation is not fully convincing. In addition, he uses the concept of public goods in two distinct ways, which is rather confusing. In order to create conceptual clarity, we will make a distinction between public and nonpublic goods on one hand, and perfectionist and nonperfectionist goods on the other.