Matt Sleat’s research while affiliated with The University of Sheffield and other places

This essay seeks to defend the claim that political philosophy ought to be appropriately guided by the phenomenon of politics that it seeks to both offer a theory of and, especially in its normative guise, offer a theory for. It does this primarily through the question of political values. It begins by arguing that for any value to qualify as a value for the political domain, it must be intelligible in relation to the constitutive features of politics as a human activity. It then examines the extent to which the preconditions for the realization of values in practice ought to figure in our considerations as to whether they are values that fit or belong to our social world. We can understand these parts of the essay as responding to two related questions, respectively: (i) Is this a political value at all? — which is to ask, is it a value that is appropriate for the political realm?; and then (ii) Is this a political value for us? The final section responds to the often-made complaint that political philosophy ought not to make any concessions to the actual world of politics as it really is, arguing that attending to the realities of politics, and in particular the constitutive conditions of political activity, gives meaning to the enterprise as the theorization of politics (and not something else). Furthermore those same conditions provide the limits of intelligibility beyond which ideals and values can no longer be, in any meaningful sense, ideals and values for the political sphere.

It is a noticeable feature of the contemporary revival of interest in realist political thought that it has very much hesitated from exploring its implications for international political theory. This is interesting both because realism is one of the dominant intellectual traditions in international relations, but also as much of the recent debates surrounding global justice have engaged with themes that are at least germane to those of realism. This article will therefore try and extend some of the themes of realist political thought into the realm of global justice. While there might be several areas worth exploring, the focus here shall be on the realist emphasis on making sense of politics as a sphere of activity that has internal sources of normativity which cannot be reduced to moral first principles, the relationship between politics and legitimacy, and how these pose fundamental questions for the political nature of global justice. It ends by arguing that, viewed through the realist lens, the question of the legitimacy of international institutions should take greater priority in global justice debates insofar as this is fundamental to enabling us to understand justice in political and not exclusively moral terms.

This article offers a new approach to thinking about the ethics and politics of the responsibility to protect (RtoP): It grounds the RtoP in an understanding of politics that recognises the specificity of the political, including its own internal sources of normativity, while also appreciating the plethora of ways in which morality features in political life. What emerges is a way of making sense of the RtoP in distinctively political terms - not as the attempt to put some universal moral project into practice, but as concrete responses to specifically political problems employing legitimate authority and power - but which must draw upon moral values (of humanity) in order to legitimate interventions. This view has the advantage of overcoming the realist/liberal dichotomy by enabling us to see morality as not prior to or having antecedent authority over the political yet as nevertheless an integral part of politics vital to achieving a complete understanding of the RtoP.

Matt Sleat reviews how liberal politics can recharge its vision and ideals for a contemporary reality marked by increased political disengagement and the rise of populism. What liberal politics should aim at first and foremost is the avoidance of certain universal evils associated with unbridled power or disorder, of violence and cruelty, rather than the achievement of common goods like freedom or equality. Liberal politicians would demonstrate respect for those they disagree with by couching their words in the more political vernacular of interests and grievances. Liberalism's moral core can be found in its traditional defense of the individual against all forms of power. Liberal politics' support for free-market capitalism should not be unconditional. Liberal politics, at its best, appreciates the role that the market plays in taming conflict through trade and enabling individuals to pursue their own interests without interference, while at the same time recognizing the ever-present possibility that economic power can itself become a threat to the ideals of liberal order. But, from the other direction, liberals must remain ever-vigilant in the face of growing political power and, where and when appropriate, defend the market for its value in allowing individuals to pursue their own good in their own way, free from government interference.

This paper provides a critical overview of the realist current in contemporary political philosophy. We define political realism on the basis of its attempt to give varying degrees of autonomy to politics as a sphere of human activity, in large part through its exploration of the sources of normativity appropriate for the political and so distinguish sharply between political realism and non-ideal theory. We then identify and discuss four key arguments advanced by political realists: from ideology, from the relationship of ethics to politics, from the priority of legitimacy over justice and from the nature of political judgement. Next, we ask to what extent realism is a methodological approach as opposed to a substantive political position and so discuss the relationship between realism and a few such positions. We close by pointing out the links between contemporary realism and the realist strand that runs through much of the history of Western political thought.

The charge that contemporary political theory has lost touch with the realities of politics is common to both the recent ideal/non-ideal theory debate and the revival of interest in realist thought. However, a tendency has arisen to subsume political realism within the ideal/non-ideal theory debate, or to elide realism with non-ideal theorising. This article argues that this is a mistake. The ideal/non-ideal theory discussion is a methodological debate that takes place within the framework of liberal theory. Realism, contrary to several interpretations, is a distinct and competing conception of politics in its own right that stands in contrast to that of liberal theory. While the two debates are united in a sense that contemporary liberal theory needs to be more realistic, they differ significantly in their understanding of this shortcoming and, more importantly, what it is to do more realistic political theory.