ABSTRACT

In this chapter, the authors examine the question of how far the negative action thesis supports attacks on the possibility of neutrality. Wherever intention appears as a device for limiting responsibility the notion of role playing is sure to be near at hand. No one, not even doctors, can claim they are entitled to kill nor can anyone claim a special duty not to. Ronald Dworkin, in discussing rights, draws a distinction between equal treatment and treatment as an equal. It is important to note just how the avoidance of preference, which involves the presumption of equal merit, differs from treatment as an equal. It has not been my intention to argue in any conclusive way for either neutrality as treatment as an equal or as the presumption of equal merit. The merit of these ways of thinking about neutrality is that they make clear a fact that other conceptions conceal or deny.