The last year has been a surprisingly rich period for those seeking philosophical inspiration for political renewal. The BBC’s Reith lectures were given by a philosopher, Harvard’s Michael Sandel. Meanwhile economist and philosopher Amartya Sen has seen his ideas picked up on opposite sides of the political divide. Now both have written important new books—Sen’s is called The Idea of Justice, (Allen Lane) Sandel’s simply Justice (Allen Lane)—which argue that political philosophy has much to teach politicians. But does it? And should those who want to renew the centre-left start with philosophy first?
The argument the two philosophers make is braver than it first appears. As a former cabinet minister, I know all too well that philosophy and politics don’t mix much. Governments have chief economists and chief medical officers, but not chief philosophers. Of course, philosophy is not an applied discipline, like economics or medicine. But many contemporary political problems, from the legitimacy of torture to affirmative action, are initially philosophical problems. This invites us to think more deeply about the limited philosophical bent to our politics. As Sandel argues, political philosophy cannot “resolve disagreements once and for all. But it can give shape to the arguments we have, and bring moral clarity to the alternatives we confront.” The great debates in political theory over the past 40 years—between the liberal John Rawls, the libertarian Robert Nozick and communitarians such as Sandel himself—have followed the same furrows as our politics: income distribution, rights and responsibilities, identity and tolerance. But it’s as if the two professions have ploughed the same field while ignoring each other.
If you are a subscriber, please log in »
This article is available to subscribers only
Subscribing to Prospect is the most reliable and convenient way to receive the magazine every month, and offers the best value.Subscription Types:
Online
An online subscription offers you complete and unlimited access to the entire website, including our searchable archive of every back issue of Prospect, and a PDF edition of each new issue: all this for just £20 per year. Purchase an online subscription »Renewal
Renew an existing subscription »Institutional access
If you are a library, business organisation or any other large institution that needs a multi-user licence, you can obtain institutional access.
Share
Subscribe to post comments
Comments (1):
Print
READER’S LETTER:
James Purnell fails to appreciate the potential advantages of “old” as opposed to “new” paternalism.
In relation to alcohol and gambling, sensible restrictions designed to keep indulgence within reasonable bounds have been replaced with deregulation plus nannying – advisers, awareness programmes, helplines, the invasion of the school curriculum etc. etc. – i.e.. a mass extension of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy with little evidence of any actual effect. One might well feel that freedom is actually greater under the former approach.
There is a larger point here about the failure of the centre-left over the last twelve years, during which pusillanimity towards vested (usually business) interests has combined with obsessive attempts to achieve social change through micro-management of civil society and private life.
New Labour was at its best when it focused on structural reforms like the minimum wage. The only idea in current debates with comparable potential for structural change is the (conservative) Centre for Social Justice’s proposal to remove the “couple penalty” in the benefit/tax credit system, to give poor fathers an incentive to live with their children – surely preferable to sending everyone on parenting classes.
Yours sincerely,
R Davis