Bernt Ivar Barkved

Rawls’ realistic utopia has been subject to much criticism. The Realist claims Rawls’ realistic utopia to be too utopian. The Cosmopolitan, on the other hand, claims Rawls’ realistic utopia to be insufficiently utopian. In this essay, I argue that the criticism can be circumvented by means of clarifying an ambiguity in the concept of utopia. I argue that the Realist is not criticizing Rawls for being utopian, but unrealistic, impractical and idealistic (quixotic). The Cosmopolitan might be right in criticizing Rawls for not being utopian enough. The orthodox understanding of utopia, adopted by the Cosmopolitan is, however, in itself quixotic. Drawing on Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, I propose a novel understanding of how utopia ought to be understood. Once the Rawlsian adopts this conception of utopia, it alleviates the objections raised by the Realist and the Cosmopolitan.

In this thesis, I argue for a realistic account of what conceptual engineering can hope to achieve when engineering concepts. I criticize conceptual engineers for not taking the implementation challenge, and problems with the feasibility of their proposals, into account when proposing to change concepts, threatening to trivialize conceptual engineering. In addition, conceptual engineers have had a tendency to expect too much from concepts, and suggest extensive changes to the meaning to all uses of a concept. As a solution, I suggest Fabianism, which is to have apparent goals, and realistic tactics to achieve those goals. Specifically, I suggest three remedies, which is to (a) view concepts as embedded in frameworks, and (b) make less extensive changes to the meaning of (c) only some (or one) uses of concepts. Essentially, I argue that we should engineer conceptual frameworks, and not individual concepts. In the second part of the thesis, I explore an implication of Fabianism on the way that conceptual engineers assess concepts, concluding that we should assess concepts by the functions they perform in a conceptual framework, which has not been the predominant view of concept assessment in conceptual engineering.