The Darker Side of Political Philosophy

The subject-matter of justice, the site of distributive equality, is principally the background institutions of a society. This means that the commitment to distributive equality is fundamentally a commitment on the part of members  of society to order and organize the basic institutions of their society against certain distributive principles…This institutional focus also means that persons are not expected to regulate their day-to-day decisions and actions against these egalitarian principles.

– Kok-Chor Tan, ‘Liberal Equality: What, Where and Why’ in The Oxford Handbook to American Philosophy (2008), p. 529.

Most Anglophone political philosophy since John Rawls focuses on the state and its institutions. That is, political philosophy offers answers to questions to do with institutions like the legislative and judicial branches of government, taxation, democratic and parliamentary process, and public services. The guiding principle seems to be that political philosophy ought to try to come up with a conception of justice that can be mapped onto what Rawls called the ‘basic institutions’ of a society. If we can ensure that these basic institutions are suitably just, then we will be able to move forward.

What the above quote points out is that this institutional focus makes it easy for the average citizen to think that they are doing their bit to make their society more just, merely by taking part in democratic processes, or allowing their government to reform the basic institutions. Within this conceptual framework, a person can consider themselves to be pursuing justice and equality merely by watching their government  reform society through the implentation of more just and equal procedures. All that justice and equality demand of a citizen is that they pay their taxes, obey the law, and vote conscientiously.

This is an extremely hands off approach to justice and equality. Within this framework, there seems to be little place for being an agent of change in your community; for attempting to speak the truth, correct injustices and work for improvement on the smaller level. Whilst such a conception of justice doesn’t preclude such activity, or judge it as fruitless, it certainly leaves it out as an optional extra, and does not recommend it.

Whatsmore, it is a conception of government that Christians can never be satisfied with, as they attempt to listen to Jesus’s words to be ’salt and light’ (Matthew 5.13-16). I think the growing momentum behind NGOs over the past decade or so shows that, outside the academy, this way of thinking about government is in its twilight.

I’m Gonna Let it Shine…

Jesus once said:

Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

– Matthew 5.16

Some other people have said:

It is striking that the early Quaker abolitionists and Christian pacifists in different ages had a public impact precisely by witness rather than by argument according to ‘publicly acceptable’ criteria.

– William Placher, Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation (1989), p. 167.

The world’s cynicism and unbelief make the courage, continuity, and conviction of anybody, even ordinary people, appear to be adventurous and heroic. An unbelieving world can make a saint out of anybody who dares to be faithful.

– Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens (1989), p. 58.

In a culture full of doubt as to whether there is a God who loves and cares for the world, godliness helps to keep alive the plausibility of Christian conviction.

– John Stackhouse Jr., Humble Apologetics (2002), p. 224.

If we just care enough, God is in safe hands with us – despite everything.

– Etty Hillesum, died November 30, 1943, Auschwitz, Poland.

Prosperity and Ethics

For the present let this be our fundamental basis: the  life which is best for men, both separately, as individuals, and in the mass, as states, is the life which has virtue sufficiently supported by material resources to facilitate participation in the actions that virtue calls for.

– Aristotle, The Politics (tr. T. A. Sinclair), 1323b36 (italics mine)

In this short passage Aristotle asserts that there is a fundamental connection between prosperity and the ability to live a virtuous life. He holds that there is an obvious connection between having the basic material necessities of life and ethics. This seems to make a lot of sense – you need food and shelter and other basic goods to survive, and without these you may not be able to live an ethical life.  You may be forced into crime or deception as a matter of survival, or you just may not have the means to live altruistically. The playwright Bertolt Brecht summed this up in a catchy way when he said, ‘Food first, then ethics.’ You’ve got to live before you can be concerned with the question of how to live well.

In the west, this mood can act as one of the largest barriers to altruism and acts of kindness. People say: ‘If I had a better house, I would be a more hospitable person’, ‘If I had more freedom in my week, I would be able to practically help others’, ‘If I had more money I would be able to give much more to charity’, ‘If I had the time, I’d be able to be informed about the needs of peoples and countries on the other side of the world so I could help’.  These common sayings seem to make sense in the same way that Aristotle and Brecht’s remarks make sense. But all these remarks make ethics dependent on a certain kind of comfort and security being secured through material resources. But ought ethics to be contingent upon these facts of life in this way?

A different approach to charity and benevolence was suggested by Jesus, when he said:

So do not worry, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall we wear?” For the pagans run after these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well.  — Matthew 6.31-33