Idealism gets a bad rap.

My uncle repeatedly tells me that I am allowed to be a liberal because “you’re supposed to be a liberal when you’re in college.” Presumably, he’s of the opinion that once I grow up, I will see the error of my ways and adopt an ideology more similar to his own. What my uncle means by liberalism is actually idealism, a philosophy that I don’t have any reservations in supporting.

My uncle is under the impression that college students are generally self-righteous and naÃ.ïve. This impression is not wholly wrong. But why is it that idealism, which I hold in high regard, is seen by so many to be an attribute of self-righteous and naÃ.ïve college students?

My suspicion is that there exist two different conceptions of what idealism is all about. One involves a dismissal of practical considerations in lieu of viewing the world simply and as idyllic. To support such a philosophy, one would have to be self-righteous and naÃ.ïve, so its association with college students comes as no surprise.

I would call this sort of idealism “bad idealism.” It involves little critical thinking and leads to nothing. You see this sort of idealism all the time. In one class that I’ve taken here at Binghamton University, the class was assigned reading after reading of articles elucidating problems with common environmental rhetoric. These articles were not dismissals of environmentalism in any way, but rather a call to arms for environmentalists to strengthen their arguments before the weaknesses get exploited.

One reading was “The Institution of Property” by David Schmidtz, which defended private property as a necessary institution for preserving the environment. I’ve been known to shake my head at the idea of “owning” the earth myself, and I attribute many contemporary and historical evils to its widespread acceptance. However, the article made a lot of good points in favor of privatization that I could not readily rebut.

Many people in the class had negative, knee-jerk reactions to this article. Hands were raised, but few specific refutations were offered. This seems to be a common aspect of bad idealism: Its adherents have certain dogmatic beliefs that are defended, regardless of whether it’s actually what’s best for the ideal trying to be upheld.

The other conception of idealism, what I would call “good idealism,” involves the pursuit of as idyllic a world as is possible, based on reasonably defendable ethical standards. Like “bad idealism,” certain ideals are trying to be upheld. The idea that unnecessary suffering is wrong, for example, might be an ideal.

An idealist of this sort might recognize how capitalism has been counterproductive to upholding this ideal, but he or she might also recognize the limitations of substitute economic systems, as well. Ideally, the adherents of this good idealism are not ruled by gut reactions or dogma, but by wanting the world to be the best it can be.

Of course, there are those who would still argue against this sort of idealism, who would say that trying to change the status quo is a waste of time, or impossible. People might argue that moral ideals are not as important as the world continuing to run smoothly. But at one point in American history it seemed impossible that slavery would be abolished, and yet it has been. No sane person today would say that the freedom of the enslaved wasn’t worth the trouble.

Idealism has surely changed the world for the better, and deserves more respect than it’s given.