In the past, I have written on the subject of what an ideal utopia might look like, and in writing it, have been concerned about the impression that I could be giving regarding my practical beliefs. Moreover, I have read some informal criticism about utopianism, and as I am someone who uses it fairly frequently in my writing, I felt it was important to defend it as a practical function of a coherent ethical system. Before I go into further depth about my thoughts on utopianism, I think it is important to couch that discussion with an important caveat: I am not a functional utopian. What I mean by this is to say that I am not someone who believes that a utopia is possible, nor if it was possible, that it would be desirable to take significant risks to achieve this utopia. Fundamentally, I think that all systems of governance, ethics, law, and philosophy more broadly are inherently flawed by virtue of the inherent flaws of humans. No human is intellectually perfect, nor totally immune to bias and propaganda, and as such, not moral system, no matter how coherent, and no utopia they could imagine, no matter how seemingly desirable, is ever without reproach. As a result, I would not describe myself as a utopian. In saying this, however, I do believe that utopian thinking in respect to hypothetical consideration can be very useful, and I will be describing that utility in this post.
The first and primary function of utopian hypotheticals when forming a moral or governmental system is the means by which it may act as a point of comparison under which you might assess your present morality, and politics against. To imagine a perfect world that is as close to an ideal that you can fathom, you have created, in effect, the platonic ideal of your present morality and politics, and therefore acts as a point at which potential problems might be determined. I am modifying the typical usage of the term "platonic" here to suggest that it is not the ultimate and perfect form of utopia, but rather it is an ultimate form of your current idea of utopia. As such, whatever flaws that exist in this utopia that you can find suggests flaws downstream in your key values. What I mean by problem here is not a problem of practicality, as utopianism is necessarily impractical, but instead a problem of morality. If the perfect world that you can imagine contains issues regarding consistency with your stated values, then you are likely misrepresenting those values, and as such, further development is necessary. This goes beyond simple flaws, and can be used to root out fundamnetal and irreparable issues with a moral system. For instance, take the following into consideration:
Suppose that you are a standard liberal (in the John Locke sense), in creating a hypothetical utopia, you have found that you desire a world where everyone is kind to you, and presumably, kind to others. Now, in considering how such a world may be structured, you have determined that kindness might be best derived through legally-enforced kindness under which there are significant restrictions against the lack of kindness, as other systems do not ensure that kindness occurs in all possible cases. Now, in imagining a utopia where everyone is kind, you have created a world that breaks the stated values of liberalism. Thus, either ou are not a liberal, or you do not desire universal kindness, and the dissonance might be corrected.
In considering this hypothetical, you are not suggesting in your considerations that universal kindness is attainable, nor that if it were attainable it would be necessarily desirable, only that in intuiting what world you would wish to live in, you have envisioned universal kindness. Instead, you are forming an ideal that your intuition has created as to what the perfect version of your utopia is, and as such, you have learned something about your intuition and your ideals.
Utopia is impossible, and cannot be made possible, as the conditions under which utopia is created is one in which those who are doing the creating have a perfect vision of what might produce the ultimate form of utopia. Moreover, this utopia would necessarily require some platonic form of goodness that I do not believe has been substantiated to exist beyond reproach. As such, any consideration as to what a utopia would look like is inherently challenging, as it requires one to consider something that is impossible, and cannot be attained. So, reaching as close as you can to either feasibility, or desirability in your utopia acts as a good exercise of critical thinking. To consider what is the best of all possible worlds, a great deal of critical thought must be put towards determining what this world is and how it functions. Because of this, I feel that forming a progressively evolving form of personal utopia may act as a means by which to improve your thinking morally, and politically.
As previously mentioned, utopia may not be achieved, but by forming a model of utopia, you are creating a vision of ideals. If your ideal utopia is one in which equal rights for LGBT people exist, you have set a form by which you may strive towards: LGBT rights. By determining first your principles applied towards a utopian society, then developed the ethical and political skills of utopia crafting, you are then more able to determine the flaws of the current world, and now have better critical skills at determining means to support improvements in the areas that you care about the most. As I care deeply for equal rights for gender and sexual minorities, my utopia is one defined by this equal rights. As this is a significant priority for me in my utopia crafting, I know that my principles drive me towards equal rights for LGBT people, and relatedly, equal rights for all people, and thus my political activities are directed towards this end. I then can consider the practicality of these ideals, and how I might achieve them. All of this is made easier for me through first the consideration of a platonic utopia.
It is important to concede that this utopian thinking has the potential to lead one to unrealistic ideals if they have not internalized the notion that their utopia is unachievable. As such, it is essential that in crafting a utopia, you understand that it is not a universal platonic utopia, but instead, a representation of what you desire, and a tool of determining political and ethical priorities. There is also the problem of misrepresentation, as if it is not presented clearly that you utopian vision is not a practical belief but instead an ideal, you may lead to one to believe you are more radical than you are. For instance, my imagined utopia is effectively anarcho-socialist, or what has been described in the tradition of Noam Chomsky. As such, it would be easy for one to believe that I am a revolutionary socialist who desires to create my socialist utopia immediately. Instead, most serious leftists would probably call be a liberal, as I value democracy, liberty, and personal freedoms far too highly to enforce a violent revolution upon anyone. Moreover, I do not believe my ideals are so superior that I ought to enforce them upon others through violent means. Due to this, and my belief in electoral politics and contingent pacifism, I appear to be more of a social democrat than a socialist, despite my utopia being leftist. Despite that, I still identify as a leftist, and identify with libertarian socialism/left-wing libertarianism, even if I am not exactly going into the streets, unless that street is a line to a voting booth. All the same, it is easy to misrepresent me because of my hypothetical utopianism, and as such, I must make a lot more caveats and concessions than someone who keeps their mind squarely in the practical. Even in saying this, I still believe the creative, introspective, and ultimately practical function of utopian thinking justifies its existence in any moral and political philosophy.
Back