The aim of the article is to reveal the nature of political values. One group of theoreticians thinks that political values are derived from non-political spheres. The representatives of the other group hold the view that there are purely political values. These two different understandings are to be found in the works of Michel Foucault and John Rawls. Foucault thinks that any non-political value can be transformed into a political value, and Rawls claims that there are purely political values. Both of these positions face difficulties. Foucault cannot explain how non-political values become political, and Rawls cannot explain how non-political values can influence politics. To solve the problem of the origin of political values we have to turn to what Carl Schmitt calls the political. Without a definition of the political it is impossible to explain political values.

The aim of the article is to reveal the nature of political values. One group of theoreticians thinks that political values are derived from non-political spheres. The representatives of the other group hold the view that there are purely political values. These two different understandings are to be found in the works of Michel Foucault and John Rawls. Foucault thinks that any non-political value can be transformed into a political value, and Rawls claims that there are purely political values. Both of these positions face difficulties. Foucault cannot explain how non-political values become political, and Rawls cannot explain how non-political values can influence politics. To solve the problem of the origin of political values we have to turn to what Carl Schmitt calls the political. Without a definition of the political it is impossible to explain political values.