The Hidden Assumptions Behind Every Law: Gillroy’s Call for Epistemic Accountability
When we hear the word policy, most of us think of statistics, models, and expert reports. We picture specialists in white papers and spreadsheets, weighing costs and benefits in pursuit of “evidence-based” solutions. But John Martin Gillroy, the philosopher of law and policy who developed Philosophical-Policy and Legal Design (PPLD), forces us to confront an unsettling truth: every policy decision rests on unspoken philosophical assumptions.
In other words, policy is never “just technical.” It is always shaped by deeper commitments about what counts as valuable, just, or possible. And unless we make those commitments explicit, we risk letting hidden worldviews dictate decisions that affect millions of lives.
Gillroy’s framework is, at heart, a demand for epistemic accountability—an insistence that policymakers be honest not only about their data, but about their philosophy.
Beyond Numbers: Why Evidence Alone Can’t Decide Policy
Technocratic approaches like cost-benefit analysis promise neutrality: weigh all the options in a single metric (usually money) and let the numbers decide. But Gillroy shows that this move smuggles in a host of unacknowledged assumptions.
Whose well-being counts? Only present citizens? Future generations? Nonhuman life?
How do we measure value? Is human dignity reducible to dollars?
What trade-offs are even permissible? Can we really balance freedom against survival?
Every time we act “as if” numbers were enough, we are silently taking a stance on these deeper questions. And in Gillroy’s view, refusing to name these presuppositions is not neutrality—it is evasion.
The Core Dialectic: Surfacing Hidden Foundations
Gillroy structures PPLD around what he calls the core dialectic: the interplay between conventions, process norms, and principles.
Conventions are the everyday rules and habits that structure practice.
Process norms are the standards we use to evaluate how decisions are made (e.g., fairness, transparency).
Principles are the ultimate moral commitments—justice, dignity, equality, sustainability.
The point is that policymaking always presupposes all three. What Gillroy demands is that policymakers trace their decisions back through this chain—making visible the hidden leap from technical conventions to ultimate principles. This, he argues, is what true accountability requires.
A Test Case: Climate Adaptation
Consider a city debating whether to build sea walls against rising tides or relocate entire neighborhoods. A conventional cost-benefit analysis might suggest that relocation is cheaper in the long run.
But PPLD asks: cheaper for whom? Does it account for the loss of cultural heritage, neighborhood bonds, and spiritual ties to land? Does it assume that everything people value can be priced? If so, isn’t that itself a philosophical presupposition that needs defending?
PPLD doesn’t dictate answers. Instead, it demands that policymakers acknowledge their philosophical commitments, defend them openly, and allow them to be contested in public debate.
Why This Matters Now
We live in a time of what might be called technocratic democracy: experts dominate, citizens feel alienated, and legitimacy is eroded. Gillroy’s insistence on epistemic accountability offers a way out. By forcing policymakers to own up to their worldviews, PPLD restores a role for citizens not just as passive recipients of expert judgment, but as active participants in debating the philosophical foundations of law.
In that sense, Gillroy’s work is profoundly democratic. It affirms that philosophy is not a luxury—it is the hidden engine of every law, every regulation, every policy choice. And unless we confront it, we remain governed by assumptions we never had the chance to question.
A Provocative Question for Readers
What unspoken assumptions govern the policies shaping your life? If your city claims to be “sustainable,” what philosophy of nature is that built on? If your government pursues “growth,” what vision of human flourishing does it assume?
Gillroy’s challenge is simple but radical: no policy without philosophy. And that means no more hiding behind numbers.