Perfectionism in political theory

This study surveys the discussions in the scope of perfectionism idea, and intends to find out fundamental assumptions, grounds and possible results of perfectionist and anti-perfectionist ideas. Perfectionism is a concept associated with different disciplines. This study further examines, at theoretical level, ?political perfectionism idea? that covers the issues concerning the extent to which state should assume role in perfectionism of people.The term ?perfectionism? first handled by John Rawls in 1971 was described as organization of the state to push human goods to the maximum level, determination of the individual tasks and obligations according to this aim and accordingly, management of the state. After the criticism of Rawls to the perfectionism, extensive discussions on the concept are continued and very different definitions of perfectionism are made, which can be handled in two categories: ?extreme? and ?moderate? perfectionism. As to extreme perfectionism, the state has to interfere with individual?s life to increase their goods. As for the moderate perfectionism, it signifies that the role of state is required to be limited only with preventing counterproductive acts and the options should be equally accessible for all. Appropriators for the second definition are commonly accepted as anti-perfectionists.Perfectionists believe that individuals can be perfected and individual?s goods can be increased by the state. Therefore, they consider it necessary to enforce good behaviors determined by the state, when necessary.As for anti-perfectionists, against the perfectionist idea, they claim that it is not useful for people to take state as a device to perfect individuals; on the contrary it will result in harm for them. According to anti-perfectionists, every autonomous individual can evaluate his/her goods and loss better than others can do. There is no gain for people acting with external impressions that they don?t believe in their straightness. This type of state model will cause a lot of detrimental results such as loss of prosperity, cultural deterioration, justice degeneration, social conflict and totalitarian state. In perfectionist model, anti-perfectionists alleging that resorting to force by those holding state apparatus with a view to transforming their truth into everybody?s truth will cause totalitarianism, want state to be neutral between good understandings.Experiences of several political projects that aim at benefit of people at the beginning turned out to be disaster for people in the end, which supports allegations of anti-perfectionists. However, it is obvious that a limitless independency whereby state has no influence over the life of people shall lead to many different drawbacks. Therefore, the moderate perfectionism model seems more reasonable, which limits the role of the state as preventing disservices and provision of opportunities to all on equal basis rather than assigning the state with the role of shaping people?s life comprehensively or not interfering at all.