Comments on: Utopia Discussion Question #3

By: Elliot

Elliot — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:52:07 +0000

As was pretty much covered to death by every person before me is that the central purpose of the Utopians’ lives is achieving harmony, happiness etc… Their method of achieving this certainly does resemble typical Marxist ideals. I’ll have to disagree with Noah a bit here. While actual applications of Communism have resulted in oppressive, controlling governments they aren’t really truly representative of Marx’s ideals which are much more in line with More. Because according to Marx (at least so far as I understand him) government dissolves as once everyone lives in propertyless harmony, there is no need for a government anymore and the society then resembles that of Utopia much more closely in the peaceful, happy, communal vision sense. This is obviously not a very practical plan as it has never been implemented successfully, mainly because it goes contrary to basic human nature, which More himself agrees with. More says that although this is ideal it will never really happen (hence the Utopia “no place” thing) because pride will never let it happen, and “pride is far to deeply rooted in men’s hearts” to ever sacrifice their wealth, social status and the fact that they are above other people.
I don’t think More would be particularly unhappy with or surprised by our ideas about pleasure. Things are basically the same as they always have been; money buys things, things bring pleasure. I think he would be pleased to see the greater toleration, fairer criminal justice system etc… that are the marks of progress from his age to ours.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:43:35 +0000

With the abolishment of a common form of currency, the Utopians believe that pride, greed, and other money-related turmoils would be rid of as well. They do have a point, as a lack of material wealth would seem to lessen any one person’s jealousy towards another. Without jealousy, or a need to steal from the rich (which there are none, anyways), thieves, as well, would cease to exist. However, by examining the situation furthermore, it is clear to see that a lack of wealth, thus “reward,” Utopians could not possibly consistently contribute all of their worth as they work for a central commonality. In order for the working class of any nation to be productive, there has to be something to look forward to, something to work for. While Utopians believe in themselves that they can equally contribute to the society altogether, it is unrealistic to completely refrain from addressing man’s natural flaws. These “flaws” will be highlighted in this Utopian society as it shall increasingly become apparent that all men have their own minds, and in order for this society to run successfully, every single individual must be ready and willing to put all of their intuitions aside and work mindlessly in this society. Its too bad that in only this mindless society can education be not only given, but mandatory, to all members. Also, as Zach pointed out, this Utopian society breaks down the larger it becomes. However, nobody seemed to have noted that in the “Social and Business Relations” segment, it is stated that “they allow no city to have over six thousand households” (37). If the population exceeds this amount, the society would then have to plant a colony on the adjoining mainland, supposedly solving the problem as they fail to recognize the inhabitants of the land they so easily plan to expand into. More would be appalled by the state of affairs in this contemporary lifestyle. Pleasure in today’s world has been taken over by the consumer market, based completely on capitalism. Although it is great to see nearly every person working to their full potential in order to reach their goals, i would not think More could even comprehend the isolation of each man’s work, as he does it solely to provide for him and his family. Also, with excess money, contemporary people use it to pleasure themselves by indulging in luxuries to benefit themselves. In most cases, nothing is given up willingly to the good of the public as we have become an independent society.

By: Mary H

Mary H — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:08:08 +0000

The Utopians believe that the purpose of life is to collectively work to make everyone’s lives better. This is achieved by abolishing the use of money. This, supposedly, eliminates greed and many forms of crime in society. This is a reasonable plan of life. Working selflessly for others is something that people in our society are taught over and over again to admire. It’s something to strive for, but not necessarily something to be achieved. Whether or not this plan is realistic is a different story. Not everyone is of the disposition to live for others. They need something else to motivate them. This means that while a good portion of the society may be willing to work together, there will always be a number of renegades who work only for themselves. This pocket of rebels is what makes Utopian ideals impractical. More would say that out contemporary ideas of pleasure are too worldly. He would say that rather than gaining pleasure from material things, we should get pleasure from making others’ lives better.

By: David

David — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:17:56 +0000

I’m not retyping everything I wrote just because your website doesn’t like me using the name a curtain criminal offence which people commit not for the sake of money, but for self please (am I being specific enough?) as an example of why getting rid of money wouldn’t get rid of crime.

I agree with everyone, the Utopians is to obtain mutual happiness by making everyone equal. I have to disagree with Noah and Zach, who think that this is not a communist society. The truth is that all of their examples of communist nations are well, those are dictatorships (dictorial governments) they are not true communist nations. As Matt said Markist communism (true communism) is where everyone is equal. Here in lies the problem, for everyone to be equal no one can have more power than anyone else, therefore there can be no government because then those serving would have more power than those who aren’t. True communism can only work in very tiny communities, 50 people in probably be too many for it to work. Moore would probably disagree with the idea that getting rid of money would get rid of crime. Money isn’t the only reason that people commit crimes there are some out for revenge, (rhymes with ape) offenders who are out to please themselves, and of course there are the people who commit crimes for no reason what at all, etc. Sadly, one of the things that Moore said that he didn’t expect from society, but wished for would probably be a fair justice system, one which doesn’t favor the wealthy. Moore would want to see those who hold up society to get paid nicely and those who do useless things to get paid little.

I missed one or two things but most of the original is there (I think). By the way Ms Wilson, I had to retype it from scratch, which is why you’re getting after the 4 pm deadline (useless repetition).

By: Zach :)

Zach :) — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:53:33 +0000

From my understanding of the Utopian belief from the book, I would guesstimate that the purpose of life to them is to achieve a cosmic, and mutual as Liana said, pursuit of happiness. In order for this pursuit of happiness and problem-free society to be achieved, it is critical, according to the Utopians, that everyone in a certain society mutually contributes back to the community. This is necessary to achieve the “goal of life” and perfection. Now the question is, does this seem like a reasonable plan of life? Well, we can ask the Soviets…They obviously could not make this type of life style work, and ultimately their government imploded. The Cubans have done a better job with this type of society; however, there are millions of people living there that are not in the pursuit of hapiness and may be political prisoners. So, in the end, no. This is not a “reasonable” life style, because it couldn’t possibly work for an entire society. The larger a society is, the more difficult it is to make everyone to mutually contribute to society, because people feel less obligated to give back to a less personal community. More would oppose the common contemporary ideas about pleasure, because pleasure is not mutually helping other people in America, but coming out on top of everyone else and the possesion of physical pleasures. In a capitalist nation, becoming sucessful in the economic world is one of the greatest pleasures, because it gives the satisfaction of money and physical belongings. In a utopian society, people arn’t supposed to get pleasure from possessions, but rather mutually helping everyone else in that society. Phew…that took a while…

By: davio

davio — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:32:21 +0000

Utopians belive that life is all about being happy and bring happyness to others. No one seems interested in anything better then what they have, there is no real acspect of commerce with them. This type of society would be very small if it where to actually exsist, it wouldnt be able to support a large population thus never becoming a powerful nation. No real economy could exsist because there is no consumer drive, and even if there was no one would have to pay for it. If everyone thought like this it would be very practical, but unfortunatly it seems to be apart of human nature to want something in return for services rendered.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:55:25 +0000

The Utopians way of life could be described as teh idealistic form of communisim. In this form every thing is equally distributed with everone and there was no dictator deciding who gets what and when. Moore seems to view Carl Marks’s view on how a society should be run where people actually help others. He seems to think that ones pride is bad and with it the utopian society would fail. This idea would not fit well in todays socitey becuase people can not be stripped easly of their pride. The idea of a utopia liek the one in this book would remain as a though however, putting it into reality is a different story. When Russia collapsed and turned into the USSR this consept was put to the test. 80 years later when it collapsed people realized that it a social utopia was unacheviable. so if a social utopia is unachievable than one to the grand scale of Moore would deffinatly be unachivable.

By: Noah

Noah — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:10:19 +0000

Both Liana and Mandy have accurately touched upon the Utopians’ ideas about life’s purpose. They strive mainly to acheive a greater good, by not having currency, or excessive private wealth. However, I disagree with Mandy’s assertion that the Utopian society is based on communism. My main reason for dissenting with this claim is that most communist governments are ultimately centered on an all-powerful state government that will often resort to violent means to maintain power. Elections and religion are nonexistant in a communist society, because such things threaten state authority. Truly, the true definition of communism is that everyone is equal, in that they all have no power or rights under the supreme ruling power. In the real world, human nature prevents man from accepting that they have no social mobility, and the economic system that exists in Utopia, in which everyone farms and wears the same clothes, would never function. However, the utopians seem to have created a theoretically impossible society, in which religion exists in many forms, magistrates are elected by thirty different households each year, and all men have the power to change their society, but willingly choose to maintain the status quo. More is clearly impressed by the behavior of the utopians. He laments that so many countries are full of wealth and greed, and that “they are far short of the happiness of the Utopians, who ahve abolished the use of money, and with it greed. What evils they avoid! What a multitude of crimes they prevent!” (81). Upon hearing about the utopian way of life, he immediately realizes that contemporary ideas about wealth and pleasure are inherently flawed.

By: Anika

Anika — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:30:22 +0000

I agree with Liana; utopians seem to strive for “mutual happiness.” Therefore, the group’s needs take precedence over the individuals in the community because to cater towards an individual would create an unbalance in the relationship dynamics. People would start to strive for personal happiness, and soon that would morph into striving for their own personal gain in other areas of life and disregarding the community to a certain degree. The utopia would fall apart. More state that he doesn’t think this kind of society would be better than a utopia. People may seem to be happy-but only in “comparison to others misery” (page 82.) I think everyone should strive to better society, but that shouldn’t be the main focus of ones life. They shouldn’t have to limit their own happiness because someone else isn’t as fulfilled as they are. In the end, everyone is going to watch out for themselves, it’s inevitable. However, they should make an extra effort to go beyond that and take in aspects of a Utopia, like improving the community.

By: Mandy

Mandy — Thu, 15 May 2008 01:46:24 +0000

Utopians believe the purpose of life is just to be happy & to live a good life morally. They believe that the way this is to be achieved is just to get rid of money. In their minds, this would eliminate greed, theft, fraud, murder, poverty, pride, as well as other things. Although this idea is good in theory, it would never work in reality and More would agree with this. Taking money away would be taking all the fun out of life. No one would want to work because there would be no motivation. Nobody would have the dream of becoming rich to buy a big house and a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. None of this stuff would even exist because no one would be willing to work and produce nice things. Life would be so boring. We would be living in a Communist world and everybody knows that communism never works out in the end.