In Charles Larmore’s essay, he tries to illustrate the idea of political liberalism from board to narrow. Firstly he admits that liberalism is a controversial issue even between its adherents and adversaries, but that is not worthless to investigate. Larmore points out that there are two basic problems motivate us to continue research this project.

The first one is we always try to seek the moral limits to the government. This is not just that provide rules to constrain the conduct of the rulers. More significant point is to find out the common goods that the government ought to promote and recognize. The second basic problem is that the increasing awareness that the reasonable people tend to differ and disagree about the nature of the good life. This is mainly focus on the reasonable disagreement about what good life should be, the example given by Larmore is religious wars. On the other hand, rather than the views hold by pluralists that who asserts there are many valid forms of human self-realisation, Larmore tends to think that there should be common values we would accept unanimously (e.g. we share certain views that what makes life worth living).

Larmore claims the minimal moral conception can be devised political principles which expressing some idea of common goods. One of the methods can be able to describe the idea of that is using “neutrality”, which means that to be neutral with respect to controversial views. Larmore believes that different views of good life can be deemed as so many ways to achieve happiness, desires and satisfaction – common values. And therefore through the way of “neutrality”, we can succeed to bring great amount of common values overall and find out the solution. In addition, Larmore agrees with Nagel that when we appeal to the higher standard of objective, we would finally find out that the confrontation is always due to the incompatible personal points of views. And he strongly denies that liberalism is just a matter of skepticism.

In the second part, Larmore starts on the problematic conception of moral justification and the critics about Kant and Mill. Firstly he point out that Kant and Mill tried to justify the principles of neutrality by appealing to the ideals of autonomy and individuality is doubtful. The points are first there are actually difference between autonomy and individuality; the second point is that moral standard and commitment. As Larmore claims that “if autonomy and individuality are supreme values, they must regulate the way we affirm not only substantial views of the good life but our most fundamental moral commitments”. Therefore he also criticizes that Kant and Mill should not appeal to individuality and autonomy and that finally appeal to the stem of moral justification. It is because the extent of moral justification is too board and problematic, if they justified their arguments by appealing to it, that would just make their justification much problematic.

Consequently, Larmore claims that we should find out the means of two extremes of political liberalism in order to justify the idea: (1) that is the base of political neutrality which is aim to what individualists claims that to share our overall conception of good life (Kant, Mill); (2) individual can hold different ideals of good life but roughly equal in power and the established political principles will not favour any of these rival ideals (Hobbes). He also emphasizes the justification of moral basis must be minimal but not trivial.

Then in part III essay, Larmore demonstrates his justification of liberal neutrality. He derives the justification in two parts: the norms of rational dialogue and equal respect. The first part is the norm of rational dialogue, which mainly derived in two parts in discussion – proof and justification. Proof, of course is simply logical working out of the proof; however justification is concern to the techniques to convince others who disagreed to join us. The objective of these two performances is to find out the common grounds in our discussion. Then we can be able to seek the common beliefs we share, emphasize to solve problems and disagreements through discussion instead of force.

The second norm of equal respect which demonstrated with rational dialogue that appeal to simply the capacity of thinking and acting on the basis of reasons (that is left open that they decide what they shall count as valid reasons or reasons from a tradition to which they belong). Equal respect is precedence but does not mean to cease our allegiance to the ideal. There must be some natural values conflict each other and we ought to reject one of them (the example that Larmore given is the gluttonous life and the healthy life).

In the conclude of that, the norms of rational dialogue and equal respect “make a certain individualism overriding within the political realm that the right and duty of citizens must be specifiable in abstraction from any controversial ideals they may share with others”, but this it, not boarder individualism at all (Larmore strongly emphasize that). According to that, we always define what is our first value and specific it as clear as possible, which not just like Kant and Mill’s conception of liberalism where appeal to the vague sense of moral justification.

In the last part of the essay, Larmore again claims that liberalism may only need to satisfy the minimal moral conception. The version of liberalism like that and exclude the individualist views of good life is what Larmore called “political liberalism”. And finally wish to justify two points of his political liberalism would be likely misunderstand. The first one is “no contrast is intended between ‘political’ and ‘moral’”, which general claim that the moral conception is minimal based on the norm of equal respect. The second one is the two norms illustrated above are “understood to be correct and valid norms and not merely norms which people in a liberal order believe to be correct and valid” (which can be explained that, is “universally truth”, that is also the reason that Larmore said his theory is not just the “philosophy of man”). And He insist that political liberalism is not just an object of consensus but the actual valid and clear moral conception, which is his essay main standpoint of his essay.