Scholars and thinkers of repute in the fields of philosophy, political science, and history during the ancient, classical, and contemporary epochs of learning have put forward theories that attempt to explain the origins, necessity, and functions of the state. Some have supported the need to have an absolute sovereign government or state that serves as a custodian of people’s power while others have argued in support of anarchy or a minimal state like Robert Nozick in his 1974 masterpiece titled “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. They have also theorized on various aspects of society like justice, legitimacy, human rights among others. This task is a summary of Robert Nozick’s chapter seven in the above-mentioned book.
Robert Nozick’s Idea of State
The state and its legitimacy are one of the main themes in Robert Nozick’s book. According to Valentyne, Nozick holds that it is not possible to have a legitimate state especially one that enjoys absolute legitimacy (86). Therefore, Nozick proposes the replacement of the present state with a minimal state which safeguards people only against violence, theft, fraud, and violation of contract Valentyne (86). Nozick’s sense of state is that of a coercive organization that for a given territory has effectual domination on the use of weapons to enforce its will and interests Valentyne (87).
Robert Nozick’s Critique of Rawl’s Distributive Justice
In chapter seven Nozick provides an articulate critique upon Rawl’s theory of distributive justice (150). Distributive justice deals with fair allocation of resources on the basis of ethical and moral principles of the society (275). It proposes the allocation of opportunities and wealth on the basis of merits and moral obligations. So that in the long run, each member of the society gets what is entitled to him or her Rawl (275).
Valentyne argues that Nozick holds a libertarian theory of justice as opposed to Rawl’s distributive theory of justice (88).Despite his deviation from Rawl’s distributive theory of justice; Nozick believes that sound adult humans have certain undeniable rights including a right to bodily honor which makes illegal murdering, persecuting, or hurting the holder of the right Valentyne (88).
Nozick’s theory of justice holds that an action is just if it does not violate other people’s libertarian rights. The libertarian rights according to Nozick are original absolute self-ownership, rights of a common use of the external world, rights of primary acquisition. While on the one hand, Rawl understands justice based on distributive shares based on moral obligations, Nozick proposes a theory of justice based on libertarian rights enumerated above. For him, an action is just if it doesn’t violate another’s libertarian rights as opposed to Rawl’s theory of justice which is based on merits and moral obligations in determining what an individual is entitled to and what is fair in eyes of the ordinary man in the street.
According to Nozick the role of the minimal state is limited to safeguarding the libertarian rights of the individual citizens against theft, torture, and maiming. Otherwise, the individuals will still retain some right of self-defending their libertarian rights. However, it is important to note that Nozick holds to the fundamental principles despite his dismissal of Rawl’s distributive theory.
Works Cited
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: University of Michigan, 2010.Print.
Rawls, John. A theory of justice. London: Harvard University Press, 1999.Print.
Vallentyne, Peter. The Twentieth Century: Quine and After. Central Works of Philosophy. Vol. 5, 2006, 86-103.
The desire to create an improved society seems to be one of the most prominent in philosophy. Thomas More, a social philosopher, envisioned a perfect world in his most celebrated work, Utopia, which shaped philosophical discourse for centuries. Although fundamental, the book was not the first of its type – fantasizing about a better life is a significant part of human existence. For instance, long before More, Plato described an ideal society in Republic (Sharpe, 2019). Nonetheless, More’s vision and the name that he gave to the phenomenon contributed immensely to the idea of an idealized world and shaped modern philosophical tendencies.
The original meaning of the word “utopia” accentuates the elusive nature of the notion. The word coined to signify a community with a flawless government can be translated from Greek as “no place,” a place that does not or cannot exist (Hodgkinson, 2016). The modern meaning of “utopia” in many aspects coincides with Greek translation. Although the word seems to be chiefly used to mean a perfect state or a place and not necessarily from a political standpoint, its connotative meaning entails a sense of infeasibility or impracticability. From a political perspective, the word becomes utilized to speak of an unrealizable state, such as communism. Therefore, the meaning of “utopia” did not change to a tangible extent, as the modern meaning aligns with the one that More assigned to it.
Utopia could be closely related to the philosophical school of utilitarianism. The utopian idea of moral and political right and wrong can be thought of as utilitarian, meant to maximize individual and societal well-being. More’s Utopian society has several characteristics that are utilitarian: for instance, the book shows that a criminal justice system should be rather rehabilitative than punitive. It is stated that “instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood” (More, 2001, p. 44). Hence, based on More’s Utopia, primarily punitive systems are politically wrong, whereas those that prefer rehabilitation are favored. The notion that to improve society, offenders should be rehabilitated rather than punished is utilitarian in nature.
Technological progress could change the idea that a utopian society is unfeasible. Technological utopianism allocates a fundamental role in scientific advancement in achieving a perfect society, particularly regarding social justice (Clint & Cameron, 2016). Even though technological development prompts alarmism, the benefits that it entails eclipse the polarization in viewpoints. Such innovations as genetic engineering, extensive use of solar energy, and universal access to the Internet could alleviate the colossal divide between countries and social classes (Dyson, 1997). For example, access to the Internet in remote places can enhance their financial situation by enabling businesses and farms and connecting them to the current global economy (Dyson, 1997). Thus, despite the polarization to which it contributes, technology is instrumental in completing an immense objective – mitigating social inequity. The objective’s significance helps to overcome the concern regarding polarization.
The society that More described in Utopia served as a blueprint for many political activists and possibly tipped history in the direction of somewhat higher social justice. Although the way the word “utopia” is used as a shade of unfeasibility, the current technological advancement could change it. Progress in renewable energy research, genetic manipulations, and communication technologies give a reason to think that the society that More envisioned could be not too removed in time.
References
Clint, J., & Cameron, E. (2016). The individual and utopia: A multidisciplinary study of humanity and perfection. Routledge.
A Utopian vision need not necessarily be a useful one, if, for instance, it is impossibly unworkable or utterly unsuited to life as we know it on our planet and in our surroundings. Such a vision might prompt the reader to think more closely about the true nature of life, but it may not be particularly pragmatic. Sir Thomas More’s vision of life in his imagined Utopia, which set a trend for many future writers, might appear unpractical, but there is nothing to suggest that his vision is marked by a lack of pragmatism—for he speaks of practice rather than theory, of things that the Utopians have done rather than what their laws or their Scriptures require them to do.
Discussion
The present study focuses on three sections of Utopia—the section on “Trades and Manner of Life”, that on “Traffic”, and the one intriguingly titled “On Slaves and Marriage.” The aim of the study is to relate the perennial appeal of the text to the particular point of view it presents on economics and political relations; on family life and social structure; on art and culture, and on belief and value systems, in a situation supposedly as near the practical ideal of perfection as possible among human beings.
It is a generally accepted fact that culture developed with agriculture, and much of present day barbarity could perhaps be related to the decline of human involvement in agriculture. The notion that agriculture is “so universally understood” and so generally practiced by all Utopians in More’s vision suggests that no Utopian would ever have to suffer the modern syndrome of boredom, especially because of the universal practice of at least one other trade in addition to agriculture.
The ‘syphogrants’ who oversee a group of thirty families have as their chief concern to take care that “no man may live idle, but that every one may follow his trade diligently.” However, the Utopians take care not to wear themselves out with work. Their work day is carefully measured and they put in six hours of their best effort at the times that are found to be best suited to it. The leisure available to them they do not “abuse” to “luxury and idleness.” Instead they spend such time in reading, listening to public lectures, or practicing their own trades(in which case they are not looked down upon for not being ‘cultured’ but are respected for taking that much “care to serve their country”).
They have not even heard of games of chance but sometimes indulge themselves in a game “not unlike our chess” and in another that “resembles a battle between the virtues and the vices.” The practical wisdom of these arrangements can be seen in the fact that the limited time that they spend in work, is, in fact, more than enough to ensure that they have “plenty of all things, either necessary or convenient.” The syphogrants are exempt from work, but they too provide a model to the populace by engaging in voluntary work. Those who show particular promise of exceling in studies are allowed to set apart their energies for intellectual work, but if their promise does not translate into performance, they are brought back into the stream of ordinary workers, just as a mechanic who excels in philosophy would be encouraged to devote himself to study. The Utopians do not over-emphasize the importance of physical diligence:
The magistrates never engage the people in unnecessary labor, since the chief end of the constitution is to regulate labor by the necessities of the public, and to allow all the people as much time as is necessary for the improvement of their minds, in which they think the happiness of life consists.
An awareness of the truth that the happiness of life consists in the improvement of the minds of the people is the sign of a truly advanced system.
The primary unit of the city is the family. There are rules to regulate the number of people in each family to the desired optimum and ways and means by which any deficiency or excess could be rectified. Such regulations are invoked to remedy any shortfall or excess in the number of inhabitants of a city or even of a colony outside the limits of the state. The oldest man of each family, so long as he is sound in mind and body, is the governor of the family and “always the younger serves the elder.” In the middle of each city is a marketplace to which people bring the things that they produce and from which they take the things that they require—without any hard and fast conditions regarding barter or exchange. The supply and the receipt of goods in the market is purely on the basis of need, with the sole proviso that hospitals for the sick are supplied before everyone else. The hospitals are outside city limits (to minimize the risk of contagion) but they are so well set up and maintained that the sick generally manage to enjoy their stay there. Utopians who live in the towns usually come together in public for meals and all old people are served first, helped by even the youngest children who are old enough to wait at table.
The section of Utopia that deals with their customs of marriage starts by speaking of the ‘slaves’ who are assigned almost all the menial work. Slaves are not descended from slaves or captured from other countries—slavery is the Utopian punishment reserved for all criminals except those who are incorrigible and unredeemable. The fact that people of poor countries apply to Utopia to be taken on as temporary slaves can be considered proof that slaves are generally well-treated. The care with which the sick of Utopia are universally treated is indeed remarkable, but such of the sick who suffer from lingering diseases are advised to end their lives and given the help and encouragement required for such final treatment. Sufferers who are not patient enough to wait for such advice are summarily dealt with—their bodies are thrown into a ditch; and the sick who may find the advice unacceptable are not forced to do so, the community continuing to look after them as assiduously as before.
Women may not marry before eighteen and neither may they marry men who are not yet twenty two. Premarital sex is punished, as is adultery, and divorces are granted only in cases of adultery or “insufferable perverseness.” Before marriage a man of gravity presents the man, unclothed, to the woman for inspection while a ‘grave matron’ performs a similar service for the bridegroom—for no one need be forced to buy a pig in a poke, especially when the situation is one that demands as permanent an attachment as marriage. After marriage, husbands have the power to correct their wives just as parents have the power to chastise children. The punishment for major crimes is decided by the Senate and the usual punishment is slavery for a period that may be long or short depending on the nature of the crime and the behavior of the criminal during his punishment.
Utopians have “few laws” and “no lawyers” Such laws as they have are easily understood by all. No man who aspires to any office will ever attain it, for offices are not meant to gratify any private desires or ambitions. Indeed, the people of other nations sometimes clamor for the services of Utopian governors, who may be assigned to such positions abroad for one year or for five, depending upon the particular contingency. All Utopians are dressed and arrayed alike, be he a prince or a priest. The fools of Utopia are treated with especial consideration in honor of the service rendered by them in diverting the general public.
These ideas that bring into prominence the system of trade and commerce and political and domestic relations in Utopia: the provision for particular treatment for the old and the sick, the universal practice of agriculture, the practice of at least one other profession in addition to agriculture, the open-eyed entry into the portals of marriage from which only death could drive one out, the simplicity of the law and the absolute lack of lawyers, the absolute equality of all citizens and their generosity even to those outside their system—these ensure and explain the appeal of Thomas More’s work and also suggest that these ideas and ideals appeal because there are pragmatic, because we know that such a life is almost within our grasp if only we care to exert ourselves a little for it.
Utopia, written by ancient politician Thomas More, is a book illustrating the ideal model of the state and the structure of society, for which all people and nations should strive. There is no doubt that in his book More relies on Plato’s work The Republic, which he had always been fond of since student days. However, More used The Republic only as the foundation for his book, and was concerned more about the nascent industrial capitalism and its consequences. Utopia, published in 1516, gave the name to the whole genre. “A truly golden little book, no less beneficial than entertaining, of a republic’s best state and the new island Utopia,” as More first named it (Achten et al. 1, 2017). The impetus for the writing of this book were undoubtedly More’s impressions from the complicated village life in England and the moral state of urban society, distorted by excessive interference of academic philosophy.
The commonwealth that is described in the book seems to be beneficial for people, community and a state. Nevertheless, there are issues raised in Utopia that might influence the contemporary state of people’s life. This paper will discuss the statement, “The commonwealth of Utopia turns out to be a highly attractive place in some ways, but a highly unattractive one in others” (More 12, 2000). The comment presents an issue of Utopia, the controversy of More’s discussion that affects the commonwealth of the state that will be analysed to argue that the statement is true. Further, the reasons for this argument will be discussed and cases that can support the assertion of Utopia as being both an attractive and unattractive place to live for different citizens will be presented.
The Overview of the Book
In the first part of Utopia, Thomas More criticises modern England: especially the ruining of peasants, which the rich were pushing from the land and giving fields for pasture for sheep. The humanist More opposes Royal despotism, wars and the death penalty. In the second part of the book, the author tells about the structure of the fantastic island of Utopia, where it is possible to build an ideal state. Utopia includes fifty-four cities, each of which is home to six thousand so-called “families” (More 79, 2000). In the “family,” there are ten to sixteen adults who are engaged in a particular craft.
Around the cities village families live, where each citizen is obliged to work for at least two years. All men and women in the country are engaged in agriculture. Moreover, everyone learns some craft that is passed down from one generation to another. If someone does not enjoy the family business, this person is transferred to the family which is engaged in a more suitable craft. If the cities are overpopulated, the citizens of Utopia are relocated to colonies and vice versa. In the centre of each town, there is a market where goods and food are taken. Everyone can take as much as needed: everything is available in abundance.
Utopia is a country located on an island that has ever existed, but people have not gotten to it yet; however, theoretically, they can. All utopians are primarily concerned with spiritual development, but do not forget to work effectively for the benefit of society (More 90, 2000). In science and art, utopians have reached great achievements. If foreigners visit them, the citizens of Utopia get acquainted with their culture and sciences in detail, quickly comprehend them and develop them at home. The life of utopians consists of virtue and the pleasures of body and spirit. Citizens help the weak and take care of the sick. Health is one of the chief pleasures; beauty, strength and agility are also appreciated.
Utopia is an absolute monarchy with a Council of elders. Utopians work three hours before lunch and three hours after. Six hours is enough to serve for all social needs because the requirements of individuals are minimal: free time is given for spiritual development and education, and, for example, everyone’s clothes are the same (More 88, 2000). Ordinary types of work citizens execute consecutively, one by one. The exception is possible only if a person has extraordinary achievements in science or art. Thomas More could not decide what to do with those types of labor that in any society were considered dirty (for example, if you have to deal with garbage), and that is why the author introduces the institution of slavery. Slaves can be citizens convicted of adultery (the victim of a family had the right to get a divorce), or foreigners who were exiled to Utopia or were captured there (More 146, 2000). Slave labor is better than the execution of people. Money is abolished in Utopia, and night pots are made of gold.
Citizens choose officials in Utopia; for high positions, public authorities are only selected among scientists. These wise men form the city Senate, and they choose the King. An enlightened monarch reigns for life unless he is convicted of despotism. In Utopia, there is no private property because Thomas More considered it evil. Therefore, there is almost no crime, no need for complex laws, as the author suggests it. Utopia is not at war with anyone; nevertheless, it is ready to defend itself. Commonwealth tolerates freedom to choose any religion, but atheism is prohibited.
The Review of Life Presented in Utopia
When analysing T. More’s ideas about the political structure of society, it can be emphasized that utopian democracy contrasts sharply with the system of government of feudal absolutist states, based on the appointment of officials from above and the dominance of bureaucracy. The author considered the operation of Utopia the best for the human interests of people. The religion that survives in Utopia is purged of all that have no scientific explanation: superstition and fiction. More challenged the dominant Catholic church by introducing a system of elective priests in the perfect state.
The politician goes much further than Plato when defining the perfect state. Utopia is not a city state that is self-sufficient, but a nation-state, occupying a territory about the size of England, and living, in contrast to other commonwealths, the complete national life. Plato’s republic was only a small aristocratic society that was dependent on the labor of slaves and peasants; communism was spread only among the ruling class. The communism of the utopians, based on abundance and security, surpasses the equalization of the bourgeois socialists, who do not see that the equation can only appear after the destruction of classes.
According to More, Utopia is a society without classes consisting of a majority that is free from exploitation. However, in designing an equal organization, Thomas More seems to be inconsistent, allowing the existence of slaves in Utopia. Slaves on the island are deprived category of the population, burdened by heavy labor duties. They are chained and continuously at work without joy that is a prerequisite of Utopia. Slaves were needed to save citizens from the most challenging and dirty work. It can be stated that slavery is the weak side of More’s utopian conception.
The existence of slaves in an ideal state is contrary to the principles of equality on which More has based the perfect social order of Utopia. However, the proportion of slaves in the social production of the country is insignificant because the leading producers are still citizens. Slavery has a specific character in the book; in addition to its economic function, it is a measure of punishment for crimes and a means of re-education.
The ideal outlined in Utopia is made with the idea that people are created for normal human labor and that it is achieved only by the elimination of private property. Thomas More did not disclose in Utopia plans how the transition to the future system will be conducted. He rejected the path of reforms from above but did not encourage revolutionary changes. It can be stated that his attitude to popular movements was controversial. It is hard to say if More was afraid of revolutionary movements or not. Nevertheless, in Utopia, the humanist expressed the view of the rebellious spirit of the oppressed as a noble spirit and endowed the perfect state with the function of helping other folks to overthrow tyranny in their countries.
More’s Commonwealth and its Controversy
A utopia is a place where there is no conflict, no envy of more successful people (no private property), no competition (everyone is the same, not only in clothes but also in their needs and aspirations). There is no arbitrariness of power (it is wise and perfect), a short working day and confidence in themselves and loved ones (More 73, 2000). In this sense, the place is attractive for people who want to live in the perfect commonwealth. The socialism that Thomas More suggests building seems to be not feasible for scientists as they argue that the economic system described in the book cannot be achieved (Mangeloja 78, 2019). Thus, the state of Utopia cannot be attractive for people as it has fundamental structural failures.
However, there are crucial issues around this state that make it unbearable for living and impossible to establish. The structure of society in Utopia seems fair, but the individual preferences and desires of utopians are not taken into account. For example, in most cases, citizens learn the craft in which their parents were engaged, and it is hard to switch to other work. Officials and clergy are chosen from those who are already exempt from physical labor. Such privileges for a narrow circle, in any case, lead to an increase in social tension, tranquility in such conditions is impossible.
As socialist ideas gained public acceptance, a sharp ideological struggle broke out around More’s socialism. There are two main dimensions of the discussion: one was to prove that socialism is not More’s ideal, and the other was to show that this ideal is bad. A prominent place in the interpretation of Utopia belongs to Catholic literature (Wilde 101, 2016). Having beatified More’s view for propaganda reasons, the Catholic church had to dissociate itself from socialism. The ideologists of the church tried in various ways to prove the idea that communism is not More’s conviction. They said that the meaning of Utopia is only in the abstract preaching of brotherly love, the spirit of collectivism and the liberation of souls from the instinct of acquisitiveness.
The second trend of More’s critics, on the contrary, connects his ideas with socialism, not only with the perfect one but also with the scientific. The main reasoning of the critics is the danger of utopias in general, their potential to become a reality and the threat they pose to the natural development of people without interruption. Thus, it can be stated that the concept of Utopia brings not only attractive opportunities, but the danger of structured commonwealth lies in the chance to turn the idea around and harm the freedom of people.
It might also be stated that despite its concept, Utopia, as a state described by different humanists and philosophers, stays the idyll that cannot be achieved. Scholars highlight that Thomas More’s commonwealth included and organized various crucial issues needed for human beings, such as justice, distribution of resources, truth, shared goals and shared things (Corman 9, 2018). In this sense, articles clearly support the view that Utopia might be an attractive place to live in. However, scientists subconsciously assume that Utopia is not a reality because such an attractive place to live cannot be created as there always are issues that disrupt the perfect functioning of the state.
Shared society and economy that exist in Utopia fulfill the concept of helping those who are on the periphery of the state. The unattractiveness of this concept lies in the fact that while trying to remove the line between public and private space, socialism pursues a goal of a person’s depersonalization. Scholars argue that “the elaborate ideology of status and custom that provided a time honoured justification for the unequal distribution of wealth in society, is accompanied by an equally comprehensive social framing of identity” (Hall 34, 2016). This article supports the view that a commonwealth in Utopia may have an adverse effect on society and repel people from living there.
Uniformity in living, including food, clothes, homes; standardization in crafts and family occupation; homogeneity in personal expression and aspirations; drive a decrease in individualization and aim to get a unified society. The threat can be seen due to the uniformity of people that may lead to the easiness of control and management of people that may lack rational consciousness. One can highlight the alarming situation in Utopia that may be affected by the dominant ideology that undermines the commonwealth that has created public space and destroyed the private one. The author does not explicitly state how the issue of tyranny that may arise in the homogeneous state can be addressed and handled correctly.
More’s commonwealth that is based on specific political and economic system encourages readers to consider the options of saving or destroying the private property. Scholars claim that the discussion around this action is still relevant in the modern states as there is an inconsistency among countries on the view of the efficient development of society and the achievement of idyll (Arfi 1220, 2016). Thus, scholars also highlight the controversy that contributes to the argument that Utopia can be both beneficial and unfavorable for people. Nowadays, one can state that socialism has not proved its efficiency. At the same time, capitalism thrived in many countries and suggested that the commonwealth described in Utopia may not be beneficial for citizens of the state.
Conclusion
Thomas More was not only the founder of the utopian socialist movement but also the founder of its democratic direction, which presents socialism as a rational organization of society and as a means of solving social contradictions, the abolition of social inequality and exploitation. More also supports democracy in the sense that he built the perfect political system on the principles of freedom, equality and respect for a human. More sought to establish clear boundaries and relations between religion and mindfulness to make society more humanistic and open, avoiding both the complete denial of worship and a variety of superstitions.
More does not give a reader a ready-made recipe for how to rebuild society but roughly outlines the path that can lead people to happiness and prosperity. The unsolved problem of the transition to socialism is mainly affected by the utopianism of More’s views, associated with an uncertainty of the possible historical development. It is not a coincidence that More wrote his work in a debatable form to leave the question open to future generations. Although Utopia is an ideal model, it reflects the ideas and positions that each state should strive for in its development based on social justice and universal well-being.
The author emphasizes that domestic policy should be of a higher priority over foreign policy because it is primarily concerned about the lives of its citizens and their well-being. Nevertheless, there are specific issues raised in the book that need to be addressed to avoid the negative consequences of uniformity of society. Thus, the ambiguity of the commonwealth’s appeal to people will be in discussion due to differences and continuous changes in countries that pursue the specific public policy.
Works Cited
Achten, Bouckaert, et al. A Truly Golden Handbook: The Scholarly Quest for Utopia. Leuven University Press, 2017.
Corman, David. “Utopia and Contemporary Human Society: A Model for Sustainable Continuance.” The NCHC Journal of Undergraduate Research & Creative Activity, vol. 6, 2018, pp. 1-12, Web.
Human beings have an innate desire to achieve high-quality standards of living, often perceived as being free from disease, having access to unlimited financial resources, co-existing in peace and harmony, and sustaining positive relationships. However, life is characterized by unprecedented challenges that do not always allow individuals to possess what they seek. As a result, the thoughts and philosophies of living in a perfect world can be summarized into a concept known as ‘utopia’. In literature, utopian authors adopt diverse elements that align with the qualities of an idealized world. Although there are several varieties of literary utopias, all of them share common features depending on the elements being discussed and the desired outcomes. Even so, these elements constitute human life and visualize a world that is free from suffering.
Liberal Utopia in Thomas Mores Utopia
Thomas More is among the first authors to write about utopia and share his ideas of a perfect but imaginary world. His work can be described as a liberal utopia because he imagines a complex, self-sustained community that exists on an island where individuals share a common way of life, similar cultures, continuously seek knowledge, and are not limited by bad governance and instability. Liberal utopia is a literary style that advocates for centralized distribution of economic resources and freedoms to enable actors to operate equally and collectively engage in initiatives toward sustainability (Elion-Valter, 2022). Thus, liberal utopias seek to dismantle the current socio-political trends where state governance and the interest of particular groups in the community thrive over the needs of the people. Instead, they visualize a world that is free of corruption and forms of capitalism responsible for inequality, corruption, and other vices against the general society.
More’s idea of a utopia is a communal society that allows all members to contribute and benefit from the environment and social activities. According to Harp (2008), More’s main reason for supporting the equal distribution of resources and opportunities without necessarily giving power to a few individuals was due to his religious foundations, which were different from Marxist and communist economic ideologies. More intended to create awareness of the need to abolish human vices as a result of capitalism including individuals’ irrationality, greed, pride, exploitation of the poor, injustice, inequality, and poverty (Eskelinen et al., 2020). Thus, his ideal world comprises individuals living in a liberal environment where everyone plays their role as required. However, achieving such qualities in the current world would require restructuring human society and altering individuals’ perceptions and beliefs, which is nearly impossible.
Scientific Utopia in H. G. Wells’ A Modern Utopia
In his book, A Modern Utopia, Wells takes his readers through a fictional imagination of a new world where he is parallel to himself. Throughout the novel, the author describes several elements of his utopian planet where human advancement and peace have taken over civilizations. As a result, his version of utopia is comparable to science fiction since he describes several technologies that were yet to be discovered during his time. According to Sargent, (2010), scientific utopias share ideas of achieving perfections in human living standards by eradicating disease and omitting all forms of suffering, including death. In other words, scientific utopias envision a world where human beings are advanced and use their intelligence to oversee solutions to their problems. In addition, scientific utopias constitute elements that might be out of the scope of reality.
In Wells’ imaginative planet, there is only one world order that controls and regulates all human action. However, society is organized with a planned settlement, children live in friendly and comfortable neighborhoods, there is no inequality, and no one is considered more important than the other (Wells, 1905). Nevertheless, individuals are categorized into four groups including poetic, kinetic, dull, and base people. According to Wells, all individuals play major roles apart from the base people, considered less intelligent and incapable (Wells, 1905). Therefore, although his utopia describes a world that is free of the current human attributes that introduce suffering such as disease and poverty, his earth is not void of issues as a group of people are side-lined and perceived as worthless. Regardless, Wells’ modern utopia is racially diverse and people do not eat food like meat because of their advanced moral sense that restricts them from butchering animals. Thus, although Wells’ utopia is inclined toward cutting-edge human developments, it connects human enlightenment with high levels of morality.
Ecological Utopia in Plato’s Republic
Plato’s Republic is a form of literary utopia that uses harmony in music composition to send a message of an ideal society where individuals uphold education, justice, work systems, and high moral standing. Hence, Plato’s Republic represents a variety of utopias known as ecological utopias due to their ideas of a society that works together in harmony and becomes one with the natural resources in its surroundings (Sayers, 2022). Although Plato’s Republic adopts an allegory by associating several aspects of human life with achieving harmony and pleasing an audience when composing music, his propositions point toward the inefficiencies of the current social and political landscape (Jowett, 2010). As a result, he idealized a near-perfect society where individuals prioritize education and intelligence instead of the current civilization characterized by greed and corruption. Therefore, his work is considered a utopia because it describes a society that can hardly exist.
Plato, in The Republic, constructs two contrasting civilizations and suggests that one is rendered with disease while the other one is healthy. Thus, individuals in a healthy society live in peace and harmony and are prosperous because they pay attention to environmental sustainability and subsistence human activities (Sayers, 2022). On the other hand, people in the unhealthy society are careless, do not acknowledge the needs of the environment, are focused on living luxuriously, and overconsume their land resources, thus rendering it unable to sustain future generations. As a result, the characters featured in Plato’s Republic discuss the possible solutions to rid the world of disease and establish a central political system aimed at recovering human virtues and restoring the environment’s health (Jowett, 2010). Regardless, Plato’s ultimate vision for the human race is an atmosphere where justice and integrity prevail over other human aspects.
Technological Utopia in Manna by Marshall Brain
Manna is a novel written by Marshal Brain in 2003 in light of the potential adversities and suffering the human race is exposed to due to technological advancements. As a result, the literary work can be classified under technology utopias because it shares the qualities of two environments and the implications of their adoption of robotics to oversee processes. According to Razzak (2020), technology utopias describe lifestyles where human functions are replaced by automatic solutions and their needs met by technological solutions, thus enabling them to live a higher quality of life. In most technology utopias, human beings achieve unimaginable success by leveraging the power of technology (Razzak, 2020). However, Manna features two distinct cases where individuals in one environment and suppressed and suffer due to technology while people in another area thrive due to their appropriate adoption of its solutions.
Marshal Brain shares the story of a fast-food restaurant that slowly develops while upgrading its technological systems until there are no responsibilities and paid job opportunities left for individuals. As a result, the author points to the potentially adverse implications of technology due to its design to take over human functions (Razzak, 2020). The dystopian society is characterized by significant income gaps, poverty, and inequality since powerful individuals are inclined toward satisfying their self-interests at the expense of others. However, on moving from the US to Australia, the author encounters another environment where everyone benefits from the initiatives of automation. Unlike in the fists environment, the utopian region is governed by fairness and justice that allows people to adopt communism and collaborate while taking advantage of available technologies to grow and develop (Razzak, 2020). Thus, the technological utopian aspect of Brains’ story is how human beings can use technology to their benefit instead of allowing innovations to harm positive development.
Conclusion
Even though utopian literary approaches share similar structures and pass on the main idea of a prosperous and advanced world, they are categorized into several varieties according to the themes presented and methods used to deliver the message. Human beings dream of co-existing in a perfect environment, free from suffering, where everyone’s opinions are acknowledged and their rights respected. However, the current social, political, and economic landscapes are inclined towards capitalism and a focus on self. As a result some people take advantage of others and benefit from their suffering. Nevertheless, utopian literary approaches describe the possibility of living in a unique and perfect world where justice, fairness, and equality prevail. Although various utopian compositions from various authors bear striking differences, they envision a society where technology, standards of living, education, freedom, and population control initiatives are flawless.
References
Elion-Valter, C. (2022). Legislative hope and utopia. In Utopian Thinking in Law, Politics, Architecture and Technology (pp. 59-75). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Eskelinen, T., Lakkala, K., & Laakso, M. (2020). Introduction: Utopias and the revival of imagination. In T. Eskelinen (Ed.), The Revival of Political Imagination: Utopia as Methodology (pp. 3-19). Zed Books.
Harp, J. (2008). “Private property and Utopia.” The Kenyon Review.
Francis Bacon’s scientific New Atlantis originally written in 1627 dwells upon the lost civilization which lives on an island and has some particular principles, laws and vision of live. This isolated society has created personal norms and people there are not aware of other rules which may exist in other countries. Looking at the social and political life of people on the island, we may say that hey live in a kind of utopia, an intellectual one, as people there are devoted to learning, scientific sciences and nature. The whole principle of the life there is based on the idea of reason as all the actions people perform, all the ideas they express are based on the reasoning rather than on feelings or emotions. Therefore, it is possible to state that Francis Bacon’s (2007) New Atlantis is aimed at criticizing the use of reason as the central principle for creating an intellectual utopia as the practice shows that the possession of the information does not presupposes the wise ideas and correct use of that information.
Looking at the situation discussed in New Atlantis, it is possible to believe that people live perfectly, they enjoy what they have and they are happy. The main idea of the Bacon’s utopia is as follows. People live in the world where they can get all the information they are required, where people are educated and this knowledge allows them to lead happy lives, without crimes, violence, prostitution, etc. All people are satisfied with what they have and they are eager to get more facts to know how to make their lives better. Bacon (2007) called this imaginary world intellectual utopia and never believed that it is possible to achieve this condition. However, he was wrong.
Looking at the modern world, it is impossible to disagree that people are able to get all the facts they want, that having a desire to find the information people will be able to do it. But does it mean that we live in ideal world? Have we managed to reach create utopia? No, of course not. So what is the problem? If to follow Francis Bacon’s (2007) New Atlantis, we have an opportunity to get all the facts, but is that enough to live in crime and violence free society? Is the world we live in may be called utopia? The problem is that having an opportunity to get facts and information, people do not generate those in the appropriate ideas and do not use them for improving human life. Thus, this is exactly the fact why reason cannot be used as the central principle for creating an intellectual utopia. Reasoning is not that important as the modern technologies have offered the opportunities for creating utopia, but the inability to use the reasons and to apply those in the useful direction makes the utopia in accordance with this principle impossible.
Therefore, it may be concluded that having created an imaginary world with utopia in it, Francis Bacon has failed to think further and make sure that the theory is going to work. The possession of the knowledge is not enough to create utopia as the inability to use those knowledge appropriately is exactly the thing which does not allow the utopia to exist. Francis Bacon’s (2007) New Atlantis is a great example of the world where people can get the facts and can use those by creating ideas based on the background knowledge they possess. Still, the modern life situation shows that his is impossible.
Works Cited
Bacon, Francis. The New Atlantis. New York: NuVision Publications, LLC, 2007. Print.
The name of the utopian land is the Green Spit; its inhabitants refer to it simply as “The Spit”. It is a spit of land that juts far into the ocean off the West coast. Lush rainforests cover about a third of it: a third is beachfront, and the final third is the city, Barrel, which was founded by a group of surfers.
In Thomas More’s Utopia, “every man has some peculiar trade to which he applies himself, such as the manufacture of wool, or flax, masonry, smith’s work, or carpenter’s work…there is no sort of trade that is not in great esteem among them” (More 49).
Similarly, in Barrel, everybody cleaves to their passion early on in life. School and teachers devote time and energy to encourage children to find a trade that mirrors their passion. Like the Utopians, Barrelers’ “women as well as men, learn one or other of the trades formerly mentioned” (More 50).
Most people in Barrel work at forestry, maintaining the rainforests, or zoology, looking after the animals in the forest, and many also work in finance. Barrelers, as they are known, enjoy an international reputation as intelligent and calm money managers. Of course, the lion share of Barrelers work in the surfing industry, manufacturing surf boards and surf equipment. Their boards outsell all international competition year in and year out.
Barrelers, as a rule, are the calmest race of people on the planet. This stems from their attitude toward work. In Thomas More’s Utopia, the Utopians did not “wear themselves out with perpetual toil, from morning to night, as if they were beasts of burden…dividing the day and night into twenty-four hours, [they] appoint six of these for work; three of which are before dinner, and three after. They then sup, and at eight o’clock, counting from noon, go to bed and sleep eight hours.
The rest of their time besides that taken up in work, eating and sleeping, is left to every man’s discretion” (More 50). Barrelers, in much the same way, never work more than six hours a day. A typical work day in Barrel begins at 11am and lasts until 4 or 5 pm. The best waves come in the morning, so the majority of The Spit’s population can be found on the beach between 6 and 10 am.
After work, the Barrelers usually nap for a few hours. Then they wake up, have supper, shower, and go out. Known the world over for its exhilarating night life, Barrel also boasts an inspiring live music scene. Work has its place in The Spit. Everyone is employed in work they find meaningful; however, no one ever stays at the office past suppertime. There has never been a workaholic in Barrel.
Barrelers would not be classed as religious, per se. As in Utopia, “the greater and wiser sort of them worship…[and] adore one eternal, invisible, infinite, and incomprehensible Deity” (More 103).
Barrel houses no churches. No organized religion of any kind exists there. Rather, Barrelers understand themselves as part of life, and so in essence they worship life as a god, but their worship resembles gratitude more so than blind devotion. Proselytizing has never existed in Barrel. Residents of The Spit do not impose religion, not even the religion of surfing, on anyone.
Barrelers, similar to the Utopians, do not observe the same gender politics that other nations do. In Utopia, “before marriage, some grave matron presents the bride naked, whether she is a virgin or a widow, to the bridegroom; and after that some grave man presents the bridegroom naked to the bride” (More 85).
Barrel children grow up together observing no distinction between boys and girls. All of the washrooms on The Spit are unisex. Boys and girls receive sex education from primary school onward. The Spit boasts the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy, divorce, and sexual assault on the planet. There has never been a serial killer on The Spit. In fact, the crime rate itself is negligible. Typically, when crimes are committed, the perpetrators are tourists.
In Utopia, “slavery is the punishment even of the greatest crimes; for as that is no less terrible to the criminals themselves than death, so they think the preserving them in a state of servitude is more for the interest of the commonwealth than killing them” (More 87). Similarly, criminals in The Spit are enslaved; however, the slavery itself takes on a different meaning. The Spit’s legal system tries criminals in a court of law, by a jury, and if found guilty, the punishment is usually banishment.
They are sent out of The Spit, to live in other parts of the world where they become slaves to work, and slaves to money. They are never allowed to return, not even for funerals and weddings. To some this may seem harsh. However, The Spit’s nearly non-existent crime rate – two murders in the last 27 years – proves unequivocally that this punishment, unlike a prison term or a death penalty in other parts of the world, actually is a deterrent to crime.
The visionary late science fiction novelist Ursula K. LeGuin wrote a short story titled “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” In the story, a single helpless child is subjected to extreme misery in exchange for the residents of the little city of Omelas receiving many advantages from a divine source. The narrative finishes with the insight that a small percentage of the populace cannot stand to continue to support the injustice. As a result, they become the proverbial “ones who walk away from Omelas.” Generally, these people have no idea where they are heading, but they are entirely aware of their motives for leaving.
Utilitarianism would judge this utopia as perfect since it ensures that the greater majority’s needs are met. Utilitarians argue that morality should aim to improve life by boosting happiness and reducing unhappiness. Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are the two subtypes of utilitarianism. Torture is allowed while promoting pleasure and decreasing unhappiness in act utilitarianism. In contrast, respect for an individual’s rights may be the exception rather than the norm in rule utilitarianism.
The author was inspired by the dilemma of how people would or should respond if the pleasure of their society rested on the misery of even a single lost soul. Le Guin notes in the story that “happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (2). Therefore, act utilitarianism would approve of this utopia since the action is desirable as a means to an end. Nonetheless, rule-utilitarians might argue that people should not sacrifice a child to an evil deity because it is generally a good rule to “do not torture.”
Immanuel Kant would judge this utopia as imperfect since the action of torture to obtain happiness is irrational. In Kantian deontology, a person’s decisions must be reasonable and compliant with the categorical imperative. Kant establishes a connection between goodness and conditional happiness. Immanuel Kant contends that human deeds are only right if they are motivated by goodwill. In other words, if people do not have compassion, everything they do will be wrong and detrimental to others.
The child’s state in the Omelas is miserable, as the story depicts. Le Guin note, “the child used to scream for help at night and cry a good deal, but now it only makes a kind of whining, and it speaks less and less often” (5). As a result, Kant would not approve of the action in Omelas because, based on his arguments, individuals should treat people with dignity and never use anyone only as a means, not an end. Kantian deontologists would reach this conclusion since it is improper to torture someone since it is wrong and unreasonable to disrespect their humanity at all times.
I would be surprised if this kind of utopia even existed. Essentially, I would walk away and never return if I could not help the child from misery. I agree with Kant’s claim that moral fulfillment is facilitated by goodwill. I would prefer not to see the child in that state to avoid the pain of regret and rage. I believe that guilt would ruin the idea of happiness in this case. Generally, a guilty person cannot be happy, and an individual who is not contented does not belong in Omelas.
Work Cited
Le Guin, Ursula. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. College of Business Administration.
In 1516 More completed his most well known and contentious work, Utopia, a work of fiction in which a imagined voyager, Raphael Hythloday (whose first name is an suggestion to the archangel Raphael, who was the supplier of reality, and whose surname defines “speaker of gibberish” in Greek), explains the political structures of the invented island nation of Utopia for himself and Peter Giles.
Discussion
In the novel, More compare s the controversial social life of European conditions with the completely orderly and sensible social structure of Utopia and its nearby territories (Tallstoria, Nolandia, and Aircastle). In Utopia, personal possessions do not exist and almost whole religious toleration is experienced. The principal communication of the book is the requirement for order and regulation, rather than freedom. The civilization explained is almost authoritarian, and very far distant from nowadays models of liberty. It is a world where efforts to converse communal strategy without formally allowed debates are punished by death.
More might have selected the fictional tool of telling an fantasy nation principally as a medium for arguing contentious political issues liberally. His own approach towards the structures he explains in the book is the topic of much discuss. While it appears unlikely that More, a pious Roman Catholic, planned proto-communist Utopia as a tangible model for political improvement, some have speculated that More grounded his Utopia on ascetic collectivism, which is itself grounded on the Biblical collectivism portrayed in the proceeds of the Apostles. Due to the environment of More’s script, though, it is at occasions hard to advise his mocking pokes at civilization from how he really considers things should be.
Conclusion
Utopia is often regarded as the predecessor of the Utopian type of prose, in which dissimilar notions of the “perfect community” or wonderful cities are portrayed in dissimilar quantities of detail by the author. Though a generally Renaissance movement, grounded on the rebirth of traditional notions of perfect societies as spread by Plato and Aristotle, joined with Roman metaphorical finesse (see Cicero, Quintilian, epideictic rhetoric.
Thomas More describes the society of the fictional country Utopia as a state with laws, conventions, and traditions that drastically differ from the ones the author himself and the readers are familiar with. The Utopian society has several customs that make the country ideal in the narrator’s eyes. One of such customs is the absence of the notion of private property (Greenblatt 520). The property is communal, and no one has ownership over the buildings where they reside or anything in those buildings. All houses are constructed in the same style, with no citizens living in a bigger or more comfortable house than their neighbors (Greenblatt 549). Overall, this lack of private property in Utopia led to the people of the country having no desire to compete with each other through the accumulation of wealth as all of their belonging are the same.
Another custom of the country is the same responsibility of all citizens. The narrator states that all Utopia residents, with no exceptions, work in agriculture to provide food for the country (Greenblatt 550). Utopians are also required to choose a second trade to their liking but are continuously monitored to ensure that they contribute to society (Greenblatt 550). The country also supervises the number of citizens in each of the cities to prevent overpopulation. Thus, every town in Utopia can have no more than six thousand households with up to 16 adults in each (Greenblatt 554). This measure prevents one city from spending more resources than another and allows for enough supplies for everyone. Finally, Utopia does not assign any value to gold or silver, metals that other states find desirable (Greenblatt 557). These metals are used to make chamber pots, chains for slaves, and special marks for criminals to show that they are not valuable (Greenblatt 557). Thus, no citizens want to keep gold, silver, or gems as owning them is associated with an unsightly activity preventing wealth accumulation.
Utopia seems to be a country where everyone is equal and strives to be so. However, the country’s description is very idealistic and leads one to question whether its policies are not what they seem. The first questionable policy of the country is the custom of communal work and choosing trades. Although every citizen’s ability to choose the work to their liking is admirable, their choice is secondary to farming and agriculture, the trade that everyone is assigned. People have natural differences in abilities, preferences, and interests, and assigning everyone the same job may not lead to the desired outcomes. Thus, society would benefit more from agriculture being a trade of choice.
Another problematic tradition is the abolishment of private property. It can be argued that owning a house gives people a sense of safety and belonging. Possessing a residence presents individuals with a certain goal of maintaining it and contributing to it being comfortable for their families. However, in Utopia, citizens do not own their homes and can be randomly relocated to another residence if the government deems it necessary (Greenblatt 554). Thus, their natural loyalty towards their families and the household is artificially forced towards society as a whole as they have nothing personal to protect. The same can be argued about the custom of not holding gold and other metals in high regard. The government manufactures the desire not to own anything of high value by using gold for questionable purposes. The Utopia citizens may want to own something made of gold for their enjoyment but are too afraid of their neighbors’ reaction as it is associated with slavery and criminal activity. Overall, the Utopian government forces its residents to comply with the customs deemed to be for the good of the society, with individual freedoms being disregarded.
Work Cited
Greenblatt, Stephen, editor. The Norton Anthology of English Literature Volume B. 8th ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.