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.