Stability and durability of the state are subject to justice and fair treatment. But what is the righteous state and how is it going to deal with different issues? Equal behavior toward the citizens by the government is undoubtedly one of the criteria for fair treatment. Nevertheless, establishment of arrangements in which certain privileges are granted to certain individuals or groups of society may also be considered as part of the implementation of justice for special interests or occasions. The great contemporary philosopher John Rawls takes the inequality into account only to be acceptable when the most benefited from such an arrangement is given to the most deprived individuals of the community. In his theory of "priority of the right over the good," he practically founds conferring concessions not on the basis of the protection of virtue, but merely on the basis of compensation for deprivation. Rawls also rejects the use of political power to promote a meaningful universal doctrine, which may involve the promotion and excellence of virtue. Adopting such an approach can put the state in a completely impartial position on the various virtues of the community; therefore, the view that a righteous state when facing virtues cannot prefer one to another and, thereby, give privilege for the citizens relative to each other. This study seeks to explain the foundations of this theory, consider its implications and finally examine the possibility of state neutrality towards virtue.
