ABSTRACT
The simplest refutation of ethical neutralism would seem to be asking the question, "Why be neutral?"—in the knowledge that every possible answer will somehow involve some view of the scheme of things, some conception of what is good for human beings, and thereby violate neutrality. Bruce Ackerman asks to imagine "that there was one, and only one" view of the world that made neutralism look sensible. He frankly admits that in this case, the effort to put neutralism into practice would be "pretty much an empty gesture" because neutrality would be violated by the argument in its own favor. Ackerman considers it sufficient to show that arguments for neutrality can be generated by more than one world view or conception of the good. Without explanation, Rawls draws the line at sociology—and that is the step that commits him to attempt ethical neutrality.
