The transition from perfectionist ethics to perfectionist politics is natural. Political institutions can be organized and state policies adopted that promote or hinder perfectionist values in different ways and to varying degrees. If one is committed to perfectionist ethics, then this commitment establishes a presumption in favor of perfectionism in politics. If other things are the same, preference should be given to political institutions and state policies that best promote the good in the context in which they apply. The important thing is that this natural hypothesis can be defeated. On the one hand, the political pursuit of perfectionist goals could be self-destructive. This possibility is discussed below. But it will be useful to start from the assumption that perfectionist state policies can be effective in achieving their goals. These possibilities show that there is no close link between perfectionism and inequality. The extent to which perfectionism enables inequality depends on answers to a number of difficult questions, for example, which version of perfectionism is best?, how big are the natural differences between people?, how competitive are perfectionist products? And what non-perfectionist moral principles, if any, limit the pursuit of perfectionist values? The answers to these questions are highly controversial within perfectionist morality. Without firm answers to these questions, no one should reject perfectionist ethics based on a commitment to egalitarian values in the first place. Perfectionism as a moral theory teaches man to objectively protect and promote a good human life. As such, it can take a selfish or non-selfish form.
Selfish forms of perfectionism are well represented in the history of moral philosophy. These theories teach every human being to perfect himself as much as possible, or at least up to a certain threshold. Selfish forms of perfectionism need not be closely self-serving. A number of perfectionist authors have argued that the well-being of others contributes significantly to one`s own good (Green 1986; Hobhouse, 1911). By promoting the good of others, one can thus promote one`s own good. In such views, there is no profound conflict between one`s own perfection and the perfection of others. Non-selfish forms of perfectionism, on the other hand, allow for such conflicts. They believe that every human being has a non-derivative duty to perfect others, as well as the duty to perfect himself. Such views can, at least in principle, lead man to sacrifice his own perfection for others. [3] The distinction between perfectionism of human nature and perfectionism of objective goods helps us to address an important question of the theory of value. Must be perfectionist monists who believe that there is basically only one form of life that is best for everyone; Or can they claim that there are a variety of life forms just as good for humans? The question is important because it is very plausible to think that the best life for one person may differ from the best life for another. The Superman version of perfectionism is extreme vision.
He says that some human lives count for a lot and many human lives for nothing. This view should not be confused with another, less extreme point of view, which can be called the priority version of perfectionism. This view holds that we should value the perfection of each person, but when we aggregate human perfection, we should count the greatest perfections more than the smallest perfections. [5] How much more? In a simple version of sight, the greatest perfections count more than the lesser perfections simply because they are greater. A human life that reaches twice as much perfection as another human life is twice as valuable. But it is possible that greater perfections matter even more. In a complex version of sight, the greatest perfections count more than the lesser perfections because they are greater and because of an appropriate multiplier. Specifically, in this version of sight, the greater the perfection already achieved, the more the same increase in perfection counts. As a result, a human life that reaches twice as much perfection as another human life would be more than twice the value. When perfectionism is characterized by self-criticism and contingent self-esteem, self-compassion is at the other end of the spectrum. This involves 1) “being kind and understanding to oneself when suffering or perceiving insufficiency,” 2) “recognizing that pain and failure are inevitable aspects of shared human experience,” and 3) maintaining a conscious awareness of one`s emotions instead of avoiding or identifying with painful thoughts and feelings. As a lead expert, Dr.
Kristin Neff says this involves practicing self-compassion, actively comforting ourselves in the face of failure, and responding “like a dear friend in need.” Thus, the priority version of perfectionism can lead to significant inequality in the distribution of resources.
