R: Pursue Heaven on Earth

“What you cannot turn to good, you may at least, to the extent of your abilities, make less bad.” In Utopia, Thomas More does not promise that heaven on earth can be achieved, but he does validate the pursuit of such a goal as necessary and worthwhile. Indeed, he considers it to be the primary end of politics: to progressively make changes that ultimately align society with the Good. This would seem, however, to contradict the primary ethos of conservatism, which believes that calls for utopia always end in destruction. Conservatives pride themselves on level-headed, practical understandings of the world which do not seek to radically alter society. A contradiction emerges: how can people committed to faith, morality, and tradition not see utopia as an end for which to strive? This debate attempts to answer the question by pitting idealism and realism directly against each other. 

The affirmative believes that humans, as teleological creatures, are always striving to achieve a purposeful end, with that being the achievement of oneness with God. Since part of oneness is structuring an orderly society, it would seem illogical to argue against the pursuit of utopia. Those in the affirmative do not claim that utopia can necessarily be achieved—indeed, the very word utopia means a non-existent land—but they do claim that ideals should serve as the bedrock of our societal framework. That at which we aim plays an incredibly important role in shaping who we are: if to sin is to miss the mark, it remains crucial that our mark be fixed and steady so we may know what to shoot for. Thus, the affirmative brings out the conservative belief in transcendent truth and calls for us to apply it to our own governments and institutions. 

The negative recalls the words of Madison that, “if men were angels, there would be no need for government.” The very existence of government, therefore, indicates that utopia cannot be achieved, as it displays men as imperfect beings who require the power of a government to enforce laws and protect rights. Original sin precludes us from even thinking about utopia, with our visions clouded automatically by the fog of evil. Those in the negative do not abandon transcendent goodness—indeed, they whole-heartedly embrace it. Rather, they recognize that the corruption within all of us tends to pervert utopian visions into dystopian realities. One ought to instead prioritize maintaining the systems that have been handed down through the generations without embracing fantasies of the ideal society, fantasies which distract us from our actual, achievable goals. 

Is heaven a kingdom or a commune? Do idealists make for better politicians, or do realists? And will all utopians and visionaries inevitably become Jacobins and Bolsheviks?