Idealism

Do you consider yourself an idealist? I don't, but I've often been labeled as one.

I think there's a disparity in the types of people we label idealists. The term often carries strong connotations that the person in question holds unrealistic views about the world. It is used in direct contrast to the term "realist". The term can also describe "a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles". I think we often conflate these ideas, and as a result we tend to apply both ideas to individuals who might only fit under one of these definitions. This can easily lead to fallacious thinking, where we might mistakenly reject a person/philosophy/idea as unrealistic because we've mentally classified it as idealistic (in the "noble principles" sense).

Let's look at three hypothetical people as examples:

Heather believes humanity can put its differences aside and unite in a peaceful, utopic society. Every day when she sees all the hatred and violence on the news, she longs for the day when these things no longer exist. Heather fits the criteria of an idealist. However, some might think that her ideals are on the unrealistic side, considering humanity's track record.

Nicole is a human rights, animal rights and environmental activist. She campaigns for a withdrawing of combat troops from Iraq; she organises rallies against old forest logging, and she avoids consuming animal products. Her campaigning has in many cases effected changes in laws and policies, and she feels as though her efforts make a difference. Many would consider Nicole an idealist because she aspires to and pursues "noble principles". This would be a correct classification according to certain definitions of idealism.

Peter thinks of himself as a pragmatist: He believes people should take care of their own problems, and that real change happens by way of a free market and hard work. He is concerned about the fact that many people in the world are in poverty, and in fact holds similar ideals to Heather and Nicole. Where he differs is in his beliefs about how to solve these problems. He thinks charity, protests and activism do nothing to address the problems of the world. He believes people like Nicole are wasting their time.

I think it is fairly uncontroversial to call Heather and Nicole idealists. But is Peter actually a realist? And which views line up best to the facts? Which are unrealistic?

I would suggest that Heather's optimistic view of a utopic future is somewhat unrealistic, considering humanity's historical inability to coexist without some incidence of hostility. Nicole, on the other hand, has achieved measurable success through her campaigning, and has made progress towards her ideals. Her environmental footprint is low, and her boycotting of animal products has had a quantifiable effect. By these measures, her actions realistically contribute to her ideals.

If this is the case, Peter's view doesn't line up with the facts. Nicole's actions have made quantifiable progress towards their shared ideals, whereas Peter's beliefs have prevented him from taking action to improve the situation of anyone except himself and his family. In actuality, Nicole is the realist; not Peter. Peter would be better termed a skeptic. He is perhaps overly skeptical, since his conservative approach has led him to disregard Nicole's activism prematurely.

And yet this is the reverse of how most people would tend to classify Peter and Nicole. I think this is for two main reasons:

1. Mistakenly conflating the ideas of *unrealistic* and *noble* principles, both of which fall under the umbrella of idealism.
2. A vested interest in disregarding Nicole's actions as unrealistic, which allows us to take no action towards our ideals, while feeling as though our inaction is justified and not in conflict with our ideals.