Idealism or Pragmatism?

Yoonje Jin

Ever since the beginning of the 20th century, environmental activists have been constantly hustling on their feet to get the rest of humanity realizing the potential of their actions and the consequences of their attitudes. 

Admittedly, after almost a hundred years of doing so, we did not get so far. We are only a month into the new year of 2025, and already the inauguration of President Donald Trump has set forth a domino reaction of neoliberalism retrogressions against the decades of environmental progress the Western world has made. All across the globe, there have been retractions made of global climate conferences and agreements, and there is an air of pessimism regarding the current route of environmentalism. 

Trump has signed over 40 executive orders, such as instructing oil drilling in Alaska, and retracting from the Paris Agreement—orders that are projected to have an enormous detrimental effect on global climate.

In this month’s blog post, I want to address a problem not of the external world so rife with negative and uncontrollable power-relations, but of our internal world, the world of ideals and passions deep inside us. It’s a question that all those curious and active about the environment could someday consider at least once. It’s also one question that has left the societies divided and thinkers debating. The question is this: which approach is the best for advocating for a better world, idealism or pragmatism? 

At first glance, these words (“idealism” and “pragmatism”) are a mere dichotomy of simple opposites. An idealist is someone that considers their values and systems first, then suggesting solutions to guide others to such and such goals. A pragmatist is the opposite: they consider the practical barriers and possible limitations of the world before throwing out a realistic solution. 

Yet, understanding these two ideologies guides us to understanding the significant impacts of and the diversity of approaches by the environmental and vegan movement. In his seminal work <How to create a Vegan world>, Belgian educator and activist Tobias Leenaert makes clear the difference in the analogy of the “awful vegan burger”. 

Envisage a situation in which you can buy lunch for a really hungry nonvegan friend, whom we’ll call Bill. The restaurant offers two meatless choices: a great-tasting vegetarian burger (it has some egg in it to bind it), and a terrible-tasting vegan burger. Which one do you pick? 

From an idealistic view point, you may reason that you cannot allow yourself to buy or even recommend anything non vegan. After all, a moral rule that can bend and twist to situations doesn’t seem like a good moral rule at all. On the other pragmatic hand, however, you may decide that if Bill eats the bad vegan burger, he may undergo an experience that will literally and metaphorically leave a negative taste in his mouth. This may make Bill less likely to become more open to trying other vegan products and to lose his prejudice towards vegan food in the future. Pragmatically, eating a tasty vegetarian burger would mean some complicity in animal suffering, but the favorable psychological effects for non-meat products to that person can be much more valuable in the long run. 

In the situation of the “awful vegan burger”, the ideology of choice is ambiguous. An Idealistic standpoint leads to an idealistic outcome and a pragmatic standpoint leads to a pragmatic outcome. But in the grand scheme of the whole vegan / environmental movement, Tobias Leenaert argues, it is much wiser to be “considerably pragmatic”. 

Such a stance comes in light of all the problems I mentioned earlier—the anti-environmental retrogressions, the falling number of ‘green numbers’, and the dropping successes of “Go vegan” messaging. Perhaps, it appears, we need to abandon the idealistic approach, because as Leenaert claims, “It’s easy to be a philosopher and say true things about the rights of animals. It’s much harder to get your hands dirty and do the right things at the right times to truly make a difference”. 

The Effective Altruism is the biggest—and most controversial—advocacy movement to date.

The pro-pragmatic message has long been emphasized, first appearing in Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, and it has slowly been flooding the activist space in forms of “effective altruism”. This idea of maximizing practicality and numbers certainly sounds good— but I think there is one very important question to be addressed. The question of authenticity. 

One caveat to “being pragmatic” is that if we are not careful, then “being pragmatic” can be as silly of an excuse to rationalise any action as being more moral than possible. 

The crux of pragmatism is trying as hard as possible— to the extent that it maximizes the utility. So, if being vegan is too much of a radical burden and requires one to face a ton of realistic barriers, then pragmatism would recommend something more lax, like being a flexitarian. If being a flexitarian is too much of a burden, then the pragmatic would recommend another thing even laxer. And so on and so forth. 

In theory pragmatism sounds good— but it also does come with odds with how we as decision-makers make choices. A motif that we’ve observed in behavioral choice theory is that when we are faced with a moral agenda that concerns more of our daily needs and desires, then we become more irrational and weirdly complacent about the requirements to fulfill the agenda. Such a problem arises considering pragmatism too. 

For example, let’s consider the problem of veganism once again. Many people on earth, as a basic matter of fact, are simply in circumstances that make it difficult to live a perfect meat-free lifestyle. This could be because they don’t have the money to sustain a plant-only diet, it could be that their culture is accustomed to meat, or even that they love meat so much! 

Our preference for the present becomes a moral voucher against a better future.

In the best possible pragmatic world, people could rationally look at their obstacles (like income) and are able to adjust the ideal of veganism just enough (eating vegan 30% of the time instead of all the time) that both sides are able to co-exist. 

But we know that, in it of themself, is a crazy idealistic idea. Take me for example. I love meat so much! I am a student, so I can’t afford my own vegan food, and my Korean heritage has imposed a terribly meaty diet in my lifestyle. If you pointed at me, and said “you can be as vegan as much as you want to love meat”, telling me to adjust my diet, the chances are that I won’t change my diet much at all. It seems that the ability for pragmatism to allow exceptions to the vegan agenda makes it as empty as one wishes to. 

Holistically, the problem is that many more people around the world seem to be engaging in a “pragmatic lifestyle” and take their “meaty” circumstances as a moral voucher to say “Look! It’s hard for me to be moral! Of course I’m less blameworthy for eating meat! So, I’m not accountable for the problems at all!” And this, makes morality empty. And the people unable to be made accountable. 

As a student looking out for the best for our world, I feel that it is very important for us to consider both sides and solidify in actions what we think is best. And in a situation of much strife, difficulties, and realistic barriers, it is much more important to consider how pragmatic, or idealistic our actions can be whilst still being authentic AND accountable. And to do that, we need to be thoughtful dynamic human beings. As Peter Singer outlines, “morality is always there, it’s not just very reflexive morals.” 

Further Readings

Leenaert, Tobias. "How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach"

Singer, Peter. "Practical Ethics"

SInger, Peter. "Animal Liberation"

Connelly, James. Political Studies Association Conference. "Being an Environmental Idealist"