A Utopia is a
place where everything is perfect, but is it possible? Even written down, I do
not believe that a Utopia is achievable. Although philosophers over time have
expressed what their utopia is, I disagree with some of their points. In Thomas
More's Utopia he has specific rules about how the people living there should
spend their leisure time and I feel as though if someone is not working they
should be able to spend their free time as they please. Having rules about how to
spend your leisure time takes away from your freedom. If I was to live in
More's Utopia, I would not be happy but to More this is what he feels to be the
best society.
A utopia is a
perfect place, and to me that is where everyone is equal but that does not
happen. Karl Marx talks about this in the Communist Manifesto, but when
countries try to form a communist country, they end up with one superior class
and everybody else. Trying to make one's Utopia into a reality never turns out
as it seems. Although utopias have great intentions, they can never work
because of everybody's different opinions and ideas.
I do not believe that just because two people have two different opinions they cannot both be happy. People with different opinions only need to be satisfied in different ways. For everyone to be happy a society does not necessarily have to treat everyone equally. If everyone is to receive a free t-shirt and a situation arises where one person desires it to be red, while another desires it to be blue, a conflict would arise from a difference of opinion. It is possible that differences of opinion are attributed to be the source of problems when they in fact aren’t. Instead the circumstances surrounding the disagreement could be to blame. Rather than blame people for having a difference of opinion, we should blame the system in place that does not allow for the difference of opinion. The question should not be, ‘Why can’t they agree on a color?’, but ‘Why can’t we produce both colors?’
ReplyDeleteSuch is one example; however it is probably obvious that a government cannot interfere in all petty disputes. If the two people from earlier get into an argument over whether red is better than blue, there is no solution that can satisfy both sides of the argument. Either red is better than blue or not. Why does it matter however? Will one person end up infinitely miserable because they cannot convince another of their opinion? I think it would be irregular if that happened. If both peoples way of living is not threatened, then there is no reason they should be miserable. A perfect society is thus one that accommodates as many means of living as possible.
If, for example you and Thomas More had to walk the same earth, you and he would optimally live in separate societies. If these societies are kept separate then you can both be happy. In that case I would consider the planet as a whole to be a utopia.