Utopianism
by Joseph Rowlands
Occasionally Objectivism gets accused of being "utopian". The literal meaning is that we aim at an ideal that is impracticable. It's a convenient way to dismiss our ideas without much thought.
One possible explanation for this accusation is the conventional idealism/pragmatism dichotomy. The view there is that ideals and principles are things that cloud your judgment, and get in the way of "practical" solutions. If you're an idealist, it must be at the expense of being practical.
This view of utopia is just a more specific instance of this false dichotomy. It is the belief that holding up an alternative world as better is in itself utopian. That is, it's necessarily impractical. This is a serious problem. Any attempt at a rational improvement of the world will necessarily involve contrasting what we have with what we think is better. If the mere act of claiming something is better is considered utopian, there's no possible way of improving. If we're afraid of projecting ideals, we'll always be stuck where we are now.
Naturally, Objectivism rejects this false dichotomy. Not all ideals are utopian. The practicality of the ideal has to be evaluated itself, and can't be simply dismissed because it's presented as an ideal. Trying to dismiss ideals themselves is only possible by dismissing standards, and suggesting everything is equal. So this accusation of utopianism is based on a false premise.
A different accusation of utopianism is that Objectivism requires everyone to act perfectly morally. Utopias are impractical when they can't deal with any failure to live up to the perfect model. They require everyone to be perfectly moral, or the system fails entirely.
Pacifism is an example of this kind of utopianism. If everybody just refused to use force, the world would be sunshine and cute little bunny rabbits. But when the first person decides that violence pays, and nobody stands up to him, the system goes horribly wrong. Wanting a world where violent force is never used is one thing. Counting on it is where it turns impractical.
Does Objectivism fit into this kind of utopianism? Objectivists aren't pacifists. If someone decides to do a little initiation of force, we believe they should be responded to with force. We don't need everyone to follow the non-initiation of force principle. But when someone violates it, we have to be prepared to deal with them. Retaliatory force is part of our vision of a better world. The less it has to be used, the better, but we in no way count on not having to use it. The system doesn't grind to a halt if someone goes against it.
What about rationality? Does everyone need to be rational? Is there room for religious people, whim-worshipping subjectivists, and modern philosophy professors? Of course. If force is removed from the equation, then their bad choices only hurt themselves and those willing to be hurt by them. If someone gambles their wealth away, then they suffer the consequences themselves.
So this charge against Objectivism fails as well. Objectivist politics doesn't need or expect perfect behavior by every person.
A third critique of utopias arises is that they are usually expected to bring about perfection. All the problems of the world would go away. Poverty would be replaced with splendor. Crime would disappear. Everyone would be transformed into perfectly moral beings. Everyone would be beautiful. The sun would always shine. Dogs and cats would get along.
This accusation also fails against Objectivism. Although we promote a system where coercion is not allowed, we don't expect that to solve every problem. People could still be rude, ignorant, lazy, stupid, and insensitive. There will likely always be criminals. Since wealth is created, there would still be people who refuse to work, or are unsuccessful in business. There would still be natural disasters, disease, and tofu.
Of course, such a libertarian society would likely have several benefits. Freedom creates many positive trends. Prosperity increases through better investment opportunities, innovation, capital accumulation, entrepreneurship, etc. Trade strengthens the peace and discourages war among trading partners. Freedom of speech allows a marketplace of ideas to flourish. But these are just likely consequences. The moral validity of freedom rests on the individual's ability to live his life the way he sees fit. And that means the full freedom to screw it up.
So there are three major reasons for the charge of utopianism, each failing. The first based on the idealism/pragmatism false dichotomy. The second fails because Objectivism does not need or expect universal moral perfection. And the third fails because even in a free world, there will still be vegetarians.
Discuss this Article (9 messages)
|
