Abstract
One of the main characteristics of today’s democratic societies is their pluralism. As a result, liberal political philosophers often claim that the state should remain neutral with respect to different conceptions of the good. Legal and social policies should be acceptable to everyone regard-
less of their culture, their religion or their comprehensive moral views. One might think that this
commitment to neutrality should be especially pronounced in urban centres, with their culturally diverse populations. However, there are a large number of laws and policies adopted at the
municipal level that contradict the liberal principle of neutrality. In this paper, I want to suggest
that these
perfectionist
laws and policies are legitimate at the urban level. Specifically, I will argue
that the principle of neutrality applies only indirectly to social institutions within the broader
framework of the nation-state. This is clear in the case of voluntary associations, but to a certain extent this rationale applies also to cities. In a liberal regime, private associations are allowed
to hold and defend perfectionist views, focused on a particular conception of the good life. One
problem is to determine the limits of this perfectionism at the urban level, since cities, unlike
private
associations, are
public
institutions. My aim here is therefore to give a liberal justification
to a limited form of perfectionism of municipal laws and policies.