Abstract

In recent years, political philosophers have been fiercely arguing over the virtues and vices of utopian vs. realistic theorizing. Partly due to the lack of a common and consistently used vocabulary, these debates have become rather confusing. This chapter attempts to bring some clarity to them and, in doing so, it offers a conciliatory perspective on the “utopian vs. realistic theorizing” controversy. It is argued that, once the notion of a normative or evaluative theory is clearly defined and distinguished from the desiderata that any good theory should satisfy, many of the disagreements between supporters and opponents of “utopian” or “ideal” theorizing can be easily dissolved. The chapter concludes that, in general, political philosophers should be cautious when theorizing at the extreme ends of the “utopian-realistic” spectrum, but that, setting extremes aside, the correct level of realism or idealism depends on the particular question a theory aims to address.