In this article, I explore the positive content of a critical stance against ideal theorizing which permeates a number of theoretical subdebates. Analyses of these debates often fail to capture that the opposing sides differ not only substantively, but also, importantly, about how political philosophy should be done. More specifically, one side implicitly relies on a certain methodological stance, which I shall call activist political philosophy. This, I claim, is the case for social egalitarians, some sufficientarians, and some cosmopolitans. Their approach differs from ideal theory in claiming that our goal should not be precise ideals, but rather arguments with broad political appeal and greater possibilities of actual, political compromise. Such compromises are best achieved when political philosophers begin from actually occurring injustices (as opposed to hypothetical ones), and thus, respond to the current political state of affairs. This further means that political philosophers should see themselves as political agents and their theories as interventions in political reality with the aim of changing this through broad appeal and compromise. Understanding this approach helps illuminate the key conflicts in these debates and gives non-activist political philosophers reason to reflect on their own approach.
