The Ethics of Seeking Utopia

[Water123]

The issue is that Utopia is subjective. In someone's utopia, I, as a pretty religious able-bodied person, would be forced to work myself to death in a communist work camp for the thought-crime of being religious with most of my religious loved ones murdered. In another person's utopia, I'm seen as a race traitor and am forced to watch the woman I am probably going to marry die. And in yet another person's utopia, I am free to live how I place. It all depends on who is building the Utopia, but one person's Utopia is very much someone else's Dystopia.

 

[Dmol8]

It's amusing how whenever someone can't address the points you make, they're always so eager to try to pass them off as being irrelevant, or off topic, or meaningless because you're 'just trying to look smart'.

If you thought about it, you'd probably be able to draw a connection between discussing the fact that individuals all have different ideals and desires, and how a 'utopia' is the ultimate expression of those ideals, and the 'overall argument' about what a Utopia even is.

It's not a particularly hard leap to make. I mean, it's connecting the argument of 'what a utopia is' to statements on 'what a utopia is'. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the only reason why you wouldn't be able to draw a connection is if you were attempting to make yourself look smart by putting other user's arguments down without fairly considering them.

So... Projection, much?

Click to shrink...

For an illusion, you type very well.

Click to shrink...

You are as far as I understand it making the point that this:

Some villain offers a magical cure to a problem that cannot be fixed in any other way and the narrative inevitably says they are wrong. Why? Because Shinji Ikari is better off being a miserable little shithead who masturbates over comatose girls than he would be if he and all the other suffering, lonely people were one? Sorry, I've been reading some Schopenhauer and all this stuff reeks of pure egoism. ""I" must remain "I" and to Hell with the rest of the world!" But what is I? What is the Self? It's nothing, it's an illusion and that illusion is why there is strife in the world.

Click to shrink...

Is an opinion by a self and as such by pointing out his typing you are drawing attention to the fact that what he typed is paradoxical as anything typed by a self is by a definition an act of an I.

Except that you left out the rest of the post:

Now, earlier posters talked about how utopia is impossible because not everyone wants the same thing. I am one of those people who craves order, stability and hierarchy. I feel better under someone else's control and guidance. Some anarchist would balk at everything I just said, their very soul rebelling at the things that make my soul calm. This is all true enough but, and here's the kicker, maybe some people are just wrong.

And maybe that person is me. I have no idea. But the point is, we have societies where certain things are forbidden for the greater good. Why can't a utopia just take that a step further? A fictional utopia with magic or super technology in particular could accomplish this.

But the reason for all this existential self-congratulation in anime where the people trying to make a utopia are the villains is because we live in a Postmodern world. The optimism of the Enlightenment - of the Modern Age - collapsed thanks to the two World Wars. I recently listened to a series of lectures that called the 20th Century a hundred years of "Utopia" - oh and "Terror." From the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to Maoist China, there were all these grand visions of Heaven on Earth; a manmade Heaven, a triumph of the will. The result was hundreds of millions dead and the complete opposite of Heaven. The conclusion? No matter how sophisticated and advanced human beings become, they will still be human beings. We have nuclear weapons now but we're still just squabbling cavepeople deep down. That is our postmodern belief and why only bad guys talk of utopias.

First character who crossed my mind when seeing this thread was Light Yagami. Death Note is sort of a great case study in this whole discussion given what the series itself says and also what its fans say. Plenty of people were rooting for Light, including the director of the DN anime. The series itself says Light's reign of terror was working. Of course it also shows that Light was a narcissistic loon. It reminds me of that idea of a "bad person, good king," Of course Light wasn't a good king by most definitions but maybe in some utilitarian viewpoint he wasn't so awful.

Click to shrink...

Now you have ignored this post and my post afterwards talking about points this post had raised and instead you just invoked the fact that people are individuals and as such each individual will have their own version of Utopia. So? That is what I am talking about when I say that you are trying to make yourself look smart. You are avoiding giving your own solution in any form and instead pointing to a specific problem with discussing Utopias.

So I'm going to go trough all your post so far an comment on them and what they say individually and as whole to me:

All people desire 'Utopia'.

That is to say, all people form beliefs about 'what is good' through the course of their lives. Naturally, these people seek to promote the things that they believe are good, and to oppose the things that they believe are bad. Nobody hopes for the destruction of what they believe to be 'Good', or the promotion of what they believe to be 'Evil'.

However, while every person supports their vision of 'good' and opposes their vision of 'evil', not every person agrees on what 'good' and 'evil' are, or should be. The individual wills of different people end up in opposition, and clash.

Therefore, in order for one person's vision of utopia to become real, the visions of all people who disagree with it must be crushed ruthlessly. If the vision is one of immaculate mechanical precision, humans transformed into the cogs of a divine machine, than all individuals who do not wish to become clockwork automations must be crushed, coerced, and brought to heel- Or killed, whichever is more expedient. And the opposite also applies- For any other vision of utopia to become real, this 'utopia of a divine machine' must be driven into ashes and dust.

This is the secret of 'Utopia'; To create Utopia requires that the seeker dominate and destroy all who oppose it's creation. Without this act of destruction, 'Utopia' can never come to exist- And, therefore, all 'Utopias' which reject the absolute destruction of their foes are unreachable, for the act of reaching will compromise that utopian dream.

Click to shrink...

You are intentionally using the most extreme versions of what an Utopia can be as a means of demonstrating that a Utopia is impossible. Also you are using the logical fallacy that no human being ever wants to willingly and knowingly commit what they deem is evil. A lot of people, especially people with anxiety and shitty lives find themselves tempted to just do damage to the world and the people in it since they don't see a way forward for themselves. Some of those people give into those temptations and do intentional evil by their own definition because they can't do any good.

Why do you feel he is not being 'positive' about the utopia he posits?

Click to shrink...

A question about another persons opinion on what a Utopia is.

There is no such thing as a life without problems. To misquote someone, both the popular girl and the unpopular girl have problems; the popular girl just has better problems than the unpopular one does.

Click to shrink...

No. Both the popular and the unpopular girl have problems. Whose problems are better depends on the observer's morality. Some ascetics for instance would find the unpopular girl's problems to be better to have. Also problems and suffering from problems are not the same thing.

Well, in order to determine what a world without problems would be like, or whether it would be possible, we must first understand what a problem is.

So, what is a problem? There are probably hundreds of ways that a 'problem' could be conceptualized, but the most straightforward one that I can put forward is that a problem is a difference between what a person thinks should be, and what is.

Therefore, in order for there to be a world with no problems, there must be no differences between the world as it is, and the world as a person desires it. In other words, a world without 'problems' would be a utopia.

But a 'utopia' is not universal, because different people want different things. Even if there are no mechanical issues, and one person is entirely able to create their 'utopia', the creation of their utopia naturally prevents the existence of other people's utopias- Thus ensuring that there are differences between what these people want and the world they live in.

Because people's ideal worlds are mutually exclusive and often in conflict, it is impossible to create a world where there are no problems for anyone, and everyone is happy. At best, from a utilitarian and egalitarian perspective, there can only be a world where unhappiness and problems are minimized.

Click to shrink...

That is a very solipsistic definition of the word Utopia. It also presumes that an ideal is having every single itch in your brain scratched so in other words perfection of personal comfort. That is not what Utopia means for everybody though.

It's quite simple, really. When you're popular enough, almost nobody genuinely wants your friendship- Instead, they want your favors, and they act like a 'friend' in order to get them.

Imagine a world where every friendly gesture is an act, a lure to draw you in and slowly, subtly coerce you into doing the bidding of people who pretend to be your friends, but secretly lick their lips and squabble in the shadows about how they will parcel out the more tender parts of your estate once they have caught you firmly in their trap and rendered you into easily consumed bite-sized chunks for their pleasure. A genuine friend is like an oasis in a desert full of vultures and vipers, all lurking, waiting hungrily for the moment you drop your guard.

What do you think you would do in this situation? Engage in pleasantries while the butchers measure and weigh you? Or perhaps instead, you will draw away- Far away from the people whose saliva-slicked machinations have gnawed their way into your life, away from the social activities that have transformed from an evening's pleasure to a ghoulish game where kind words are traded like knives in the dark, and towards as solitary an existence as you can carve out for yourself?

And if you find yourself feeling trapped and alone, well, it's not like anyone can understand. You're famous, after all. You're 'Important'. How could you not enjoy your life, when surely, you can hear people talking all the time about how if they could have just a hundredth of your fortune, a tenth of your fame, an ounce of your brains, they would be so much better off...

So many people just want a small portion of what you have.

You must be able to understand, right?

Why are you unhappy?

Why are you screaming?

Why are you running away?

Such a selfish, horrible person, really.

Click to shrink...

This is a good description of the anxieties that come with being popular and then afterwards you make the argument that they lead into solipsistic isolation. What. Solipsism isn't the only answer to high popularity. For starters other famous people who have isolated themselves from the public could understand and have empathy for the problems of popularity.

I've covered the last two of your post already. So you seem to be obsessed with solipsism as a true expression of a self and you think that every person is unique and incapable of understanding another person. So how's your anxiety treating you?

You refuse to discuss or argue anyone else's definition of what an Utopia can be or trough what other frameworks it can be looked at because those things are not yours and as such you may not feel like you have full control over the topic like you do if you just reduce the topic of what an Utopia is to solipsistic worlds. Which by the way? I consider making yourself look smart.

 

[Q99]

I think there's an irony that utopia is so linked to dystopia and bad stuff in people's heads. A good utopia shouldn't be anyone's dystopia, or at least not anyone we care about (Sam the Murder Sadist can sit and spin).

Also, if your resorting to unethical means to reach your utopia, that's usually self-defeating.

But! If you're seeking a fair utopia, and you're using ethical means to get to it, that's entirely fine.

 

[1KBestK]

No. Both the popular and the unpopular girl have problems. Whose problems are better depends on the observer's morality. Some ascetics for instance would find the unpopular girl's problems to be better to have. Also problems and suffering from problems are not the same thing.



That is a very solipsistic definition of the word Utopia. It also presumes that an ideal is having every single itch in your brain scratched so in other words perfection of personal comfort. That is not what Utopia means for everybody though.



This is a good description of the anxieties that come with being popular and then afterwards you make the argument that they lead into solipsistic isolation. What. Solipsism isn't the only answer to high popularity. For starters other famous people who have isolated themselves from the public could understand and have empathy for the problems of popularity.

I've covered the last two of your post already. So you seem to be obsessed with solipsism as a true expression of a self and you think that every person is unique and incapable of understanding another person. So how's your anxiety treating you?

You refuse to discuss or argue anyone else's definition of what an Utopia can be or trough what other frameworks it can be looked at because those things are not yours and as such you may not feel like you have full control over the topic like you do if you just reduce the topic of what an Utopia is to solipsistic worlds. Which by the way? I consider making yourself look smart.

Click to shrink...

No, suffering is not 'inherent to existence.' That's defeatist. Suffering is something that happens when bad things happen to you. Consider a popular girl versus an unpopular girl. One has tons of friends and a good life so doesn't suffer and the other girl's life sucks so she does suffer.

Click to shrink...

I feel like suffering is not unavoidable. If you avoid situations where it is likely to happen and maximize your happiness your suffering shall mostly disappear.

@Dmol8 gonna read thx for the materials.

Click to shrink...

How do we minimize suffering if we cannot end it? Honest question here.

Click to shrink...

What significant problems does someone who is pretty, talented and adored by ppls have exactly? Honest question. I guess she could be depressed or something? I dunno.

Click to shrink...

Um, not really, 'cause unpopular ppls got No friends. Users or not. They are isolated from wider society. Ppls viciously attack them with words or fists. That's way worse than not trusting strangers. Anyway I'm done with this particular tangent thank you for quoting me to try to show how mean girl I am.

Click to shrink...

According to the CDC, the leading cause for death for white males of the ages 15-34, right after 'unintentional causes' (accidents), is suicide. In fact, one fifth of all deaths of white males in this age range are suicides. In fact, men are, on average, 3.53 times more likely to take their own lives than women, a gap that widens more at this age range. 2.5% of all male deaths are suicides, across all age ranges.

And yet, aren't men better off than women, and especially so white men, and even more especially so 15-34 year old men? They're accepted more readily at higher paying jobs, they're not treated as the inferior gender, they do not need to worry about the same threats to their person that women do to the same level...

So why do they kill themselves? And why do so many more attempt it (on average 25 attempts per suicide)? Why is it that, of my friend group, if you include me, half of the men I call my friends (and my own self) have attempted suicide, whilst I am unaware of any of my female friends that have?

Maybe it's because suffering and pain are relative. Even if you or anyone else have it better than another person on a technical level, your pain feels and is no less real. Just because, if one weighs out the things that trouble you and others, you have 'lesser' problems, that doean't mean that your wmotions are any more or less intense and/or valid than someone who has it worse. Trying to logically measure what haunts people is missing the point. Pain is relative, and acting like a 'popular girl' can't possibly suffer as much as a social outcast is harmful to everyone, and reinforces the fear of being told your problems aren't real or important, the fear that stops people from talking to others, something that can and does stop people from taking their own lives.

If you are contemplating suicide, no matter how small you think your problem may seem to others, please, dind someone professional to talk to, whether that is a therapist or a suicide prevention hotline. Your pain and suffering is no less valid than anyone elses.

 

[kittygirl]

So why do they kill themselves? And why do so many more attempt it (on average 25 attempts per suicide)? Why is it that, of my friend group, if you include me, half of the men I call my friends (and my own self) have attempted suicide, whilst I am unaware of any of my female friends that have?

Click to shrink...

Because they suffer they kill themselves. I don't know why so much more men attempt suicide. I have attempted suicide and I am a girl. I did it at least thrice. Not planning to right now.

 

[Dmol8]

I think there's an irony that utopia is so linked to dystopia and bad stuff in people's heads. A good utopia shouldn't be anyone's dystopia, or at least not anyone we care about (Sam the Murder Sadist can sit and spin).

Also, if your resorting to unethical means to reach your utopia, that's usually self-defeating.

But! If you're seeking a fair utopia, and you're using ethical means to get to it, that's entirely fine.

Click to shrink...

Such an Utopia is called an Eutopia.

 

[kittygirl]

What's wrong with just asking peoples what they like and building a world around that? It could even be a small commune of hippies or goth girls or whatevs to start with. Ah ha ha.

 

[Q99]

According to the CDC, the leading cause for death for white males of the ages 15-34, right after 'unintentional causes' (accidents), is suicide. In fact, one fifth of all deaths of white males in this age range are suicides. In fact, men are, on average, 3.53 times more likely to take their own lives than women, a gap that widens more at this age range. 2.5% of all male deaths are suicides, across all age ranges.

And yet, aren't men better off than women, and especially so white men, and even more especially so 15-34 year old men? They're accepted more readily at higher paying jobs, they're not treated as the inferior gender, they do not need to worry about the same threats to their person that women do to the same level...

So why do they kill themselves? And why do so many more attempt it (on average 25 attempts per suicide)? Why is it that, of my friend group, if you include me, half of the men I call my friends (and my own self) have attempted suicide, whilst I am unaware of any of my female friends that have?

Maybe it's because suffering and pain are relative. Even if you or anyone else have it better than another person on a technical level, your pain feels and is no less real. Just because, if one weighs out the things that trouble you and others, you have 'lesser' problems, that doean't mean that your wmotions are any more or less intense and/or valid than someone who has it worse. Trying to logically measure what haunts people is missing the point. Pain is relative, and acting like a 'popular girl' can't possibly suffer as much as a social outcast is harmful to everyone, and reinforces the fear of being told your problems aren't real or important, the fear that stops people from talking to others, something that can and does stop people from taking their own lives.

If you are contemplating suicide, no matter how small you think your problem may seem to others, please, dind someone professional to talk to, whether that is a therapist or a suicide prevention hotline. Your pain and suffering is no less valid than anyone elses.

Click to shrink...

I think a lot of it is expectation. People can adjust to all kinds of stuff, but some people are raised with lots of warning they're not going to be treated well at times, that they'll have to tolerate a lot, etc.. Others are raised on media that says they'll be the hero of the story pretty much for existing, they'll just luck into meeting someone who'll love them without them having to do much of anything, they'll be praised when they luckily solve everything, others'll naturally follow their lead when they step up. So in absolute terms, they might be treated better... but they're still given expectations that reach into the stratosphere.

 

[Vindictus]

I've covered the last two of your post already. So you seem to be obsessed with solipsism as a true expression of a self and you think that every person is unique and incapable of understanding another person. So how's your anxiety treating you?

You refuse to discuss or argue anyone else's definition of what an Utopia can be or trough what other frameworks it can be looked at because those things are not yours and as such you may not feel like you have full control over the topic like you do if you just reduce the topic of what an Utopia is to solipsistic worlds. Which by the way? I consider making yourself look smart.

Click to shrink...

To begin with, you're either seriously misunderstanding my arguments, or you seriously misunderstand solipsism.

Solipsism, ultimately, is the notion that the only thing which exists is the self. Under solipsism, only 'I' exist; all others are mere fakes.

How does this track with the notion that every individual is unique, and has their own ideals and preferences? It doesn't. A solipsist does not believe that different people exist at all, and because other people do not truly exist, they cannot have their own ideals.

Furthermore, I have not asserted that there cannot be people with shared ideals, or who understand each other. It is entirely possible for groups of people to share 'close enough' ideals to agree on most things, and because people change over time, a group of people with similar shared ideals can easily come to agree entirely on their ideals.

This is, however, not relevant to my broader point.

If half of the world comes to agree that becoming nothing more than a cog in a great machine- a position that has been advocated multiple times through this thread- is 'Utopic', the other half still disagrees. If the half that has decided that transforming humanity into the cogs of a divine machine goes through with creating their 'Utopia', then they have created a Eutopia for themselves, and a Dystopia for those who disagreed with them.

As far as 'other conceptions of utopia' are concerned- What other conceptions of utopia?

The democratic 'utopia' that all people should be able to put forwards their own ideals through a democratic process, and that through this process society should weigh the wants and needs of it's members and create a world that's good for all of them? That isn't much more than a slight adjustment to the current democratic system we live in today. It is nothing more than tinkering with the current system slightly, in hope that it will create a slightly better world.

Given I doubt most people would consider the current state of affairs 'Utopian', even disregarding my own definition of what a 'Utopia' is, I feel fairly comfortable saying that the average person would not consider this new system to be 'Utopia' in any meaningful sense. The dictionary definition of 'Utopia' is, after all, a world where everything is perfect; and a slight improvement to the old system does not make it 'perfect'. A world where everyone has plentiful access to food, drink, and shelter is a better world, but it is not a utopia.

If we take my definition, on the other hand, which takes into account the fact that 'perfection' is a subjective, individual measure, we can go even farther than saying that a slightly better democratic system is not utopian. Because democracy implies compromise between different and opposing factions within the population- Compromises of their ideals- we can conclude that democracy is an anti-utopian institution. That is not to say that democracy is bad, but the mechanics of democracy mean that anyone who engages in the democratic process is tacitly accepting that they must compromise their vision of utopia in order to get some small part of their vision enacted in reality.

This is not bad, but it means that attempting to treat this framework as genuinely 'utopian' is laughable for self-evident reasons.

As far as other conceptions of what 'Utopia' is that have come up in this thread are concerned, I haven't seen any others that really disagree with my position. At most, they are framing the same things that I am saying in a different way.

 

[Ford Prefect]

@Dmol8, very frankly you didn't understand what I had to say in the least. If you are going to self-aggrandisingly 'call people out' I would appreciate it if you actually addressed what was said, not what you believe to have been said.

 

[Avernus]

You are intentionally using the most extreme versions of what an Utopia can be as a means of demonstrating that a Utopia is impossible.

Click to shrink...

Utopia is extreme by definition. A utopia is perfect, and it doesn't get any more extreme (or impossible) than that.

And you can't build a perfect society without a race of equally perfect people who are all tailored to fit together seamlessly; which doesn't describe humanity at all. Which is again a major reason why it's the villains who actually seek to create a utopia, since the only way to do so is to force or alter humanity to fit into a completely different mold.

 

[Q99]

Utopia is extreme by definition. A utopia is perfect, and it doesn't get any more extreme (or impossible) than that.

And you can't build a perfect society without a race of equally perfect people who are all tailored to fit together seamlessly; which doesn't describe humanity at all. Which is again a major reason why it's the villains who actually seek to create a utopia, since the only way to do so is to force or alter humanity to fit into a completely different mold.

Click to shrink...

Or you could have a system so perfect, that it works flawlessly no matter the shape of the people in it.

Heck, maybe a good enough one can even make Sam the Murder Sadist happy without leaving everyone else unhappy.


Plus I don't think a society has to be literally perfect for people to call it a utopia- people will use the term colloquially, even if it's just very good like Culture or such, people'll often refer to it as a utopia.

 

[Avernus]

Or you could have a system so perfect, that it works flawlessly no matter the shape of the people in it.

Click to shrink...

Impossible; people have conflicting desires and beliefs, even internally much less compared to others. You can't build something perfect out of something as messy as humans. I doubt you could build a "perfect" VR simulation even for most people all by themselves.

"Out of such crooked timber nothing straight can be built" as the saying goes. You can either warp the society to fit humans until it isn't perfect anymore, or you can warp humans to fit the "perfect" society until they aren't really humans anymore; but it has to be one or the other.

 

[Q99]

Impossible; people have conflicting desires and beliefs, even internally much less compared to others. You can't build something perfect out of something as messy as humans. I doubt you could build a "perfect" VR simulation even for most people all by themselves.

"Out of such crooked timber nothing straight can be built" as the saying goes. You can either warp the society to fit humans until it isn't perfect anymore, or you can warp humans to fit the "perfect" society until they aren't really humans anymore; but it has to be one or the other.

Click to shrink...

Yes, people *do* have conflicting desires and beliefs, but there's ways to handle conflicts without resulting in something bad.

You can say it's impossible, but I don't think you can actually demonstrate it. If a society is run to move people around so they can best unleash whatever desires to not cause harm/help others, and it encourages people to grow in ways so that more problematic ones don't strain the system's ability to mitigate.

Also- what do you mean by 'perfect'? Like, replace the word there with the phrase 'great place to live for everyone who wants in.' Is *that* impossible, or merely perfection-perfection, whatever that means in practice?

 

[Kaiya]

Yes, people *do* have conflicting desires and beliefs, but there's ways to handle conflicts without resulting in something bad.

You can say it's impossible, but I don't think you can actually demonstrate it. If a society is run to move people around so they can best unleash whatever desires to not cause harm/help others, and it encourages people to grow in ways so that more problematic ones don't strain the system's ability to mitigate.

Also- what do you mean by 'perfect'? Like, replace the word there with the phrase 'great place to live for everyone who wants in.' Is *that* impossible, or merely perfection-perfection, whatever that means in practice?

Click to shrink...

"Perfection" implies no flaws, at all, no faults, no failure states, since, you know, perfect means perfect. A great place to live isn't perfect if there are any flaws, however rare or swiftly addressed.

 

[Avernus]

Yes, people *do* have conflicting desires and beliefs, but there's ways to handle conflicts without resulting in something bad.

Click to shrink...

But that's not enough for something to be a utopia; it has to be perfect, not merely "good".

As for what "perfect" is, besides (as said by Kaiya) it being flawless it's not even well defined what is merely desirable in a society; much less perfect. That's part of the problem.

 

[Night]

"Perfection" implies no flaws, at all, no faults, no failure states, since, you know, perfect means perfect. A great place to live isn't perfect if there are any flaws, however rare or swiftly addressed.

Click to shrink...

So a society that handles all its conflict effectively can in fact be perfect depending on whether you decide that conflict existing at all or merely existing in destructive and unredressed forms is a flaw. This is more squishy than you or Avernus think.

 

[Avernus]

So a society that handles all its conflict effectively can in fact be perfect depending on whether you decide that conflict existing at all or merely existing in destructive and unredressed forms is a flaw.

Click to shrink...

That depends on if you consider mass mind control as a flaw or not; because that's the only way such a thing could happen. Without mass mind control there will always be at least some conflicts that can't be resolved.

 

[kittygirl]

It all depends on who is building the Utopia, but one person's Utopia is very much someone else's Dystopia.

Click to shrink...

Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence, friend. If it depends on who's building it then how could it simultaneously be a dystopia if the 'right' person built it? I am confuzzled right meow. ^_^;

 

[Q99]

"Perfection" implies no flaws, at all, no faults, no failure states, since, you know, perfect means perfect. A great place to live isn't perfect if there are any flaws, however rare or swiftly addressed.

Click to shrink...

Yea, but who actually means that even when talking Utopias? I don't think that's anyone's working definition of the term in practice, it seems more like a definition chosen to price it out of reach and thus not talk about making things fairly utopian.




If personal flaws all addressed and managed in a way satisfactory to the people involved sooner or later, even if they exist, that hardly sounds like a flaw in the system either.

 

[Dmol8]

To begin with, you're either seriously misunderstanding my arguments, or you seriously misunderstand solipsism.

Solipsism, ultimately, is the notion that the only thing which exists is the self. Under solipsism, only 'I' exist; all others are mere fakes.

How does this track with the notion that every individual is unique, and has their own ideals and preferences? It doesn't. A solipsist does not believe that different people exist at all, and because other people do not truly exist, they cannot have their own ideals.

Click to shrink...

I'm not accusing you of being a solipsist. I'm saying that your argument about every person needing to roll over every other person one way or another in order to achieve their vision of Utopia means that your idea of what an Utopia is involves solipsism in every Utopia's makeup.

Furthermore, I have not asserted that there cannot be people with shared ideals, or who understand each other. It is entirely possible for groups of people to share 'close enough' ideals to agree on most things, and because people change over time, a group of people with similar shared ideals can easily come to agree entirely on their ideals.

This is, however, not relevant to my broader point.

Click to shrink...

The way you are describing people share the same ideal has a term for it: A Cult. Every Cult has a Cult Leader who sees themself as above the other members of the Cult in some way and as such Cults of Ideals get closer and closer to their Ideal in real life they get more and more isolationist and abusive in their implementation of their ideal. And no not every cult of this type degrades into solipsistic subservience to the Cult Leader or the Ideal itself.

If half of the world comes to agree that becoming nothing more than a cog in a great machine- a position that has been advocated multiple times through this thread- is 'Utopic', the other half still disagrees. If the half that has decided that transforming humanity into the cogs of a divine machine goes through with creating their 'Utopia', then they have created a Eutopia for themselves, and a Dystopia for those who disagreed with them.

Click to shrink...

? Why do you assume that in order for a Utopia to be complete it has to involve all of Humanity? Or all of Sapient beings? If this divine machine and it's cogs leave the rest of Humanity to their own choices, allow for new cogs to be added from the outside and old cogs to leave freely if they no longer feel like being cogs and just defends itself from parts of Humanity that want it destroyed without trying to suborn the rest of Humanity to it's rule then for me that is an out an out Eutopia of the Divine Machine.

As far as 'other conceptions of utopia' are concerned- What other conceptions of utopia?

The democratic 'utopia' that all people should be able to put forwards their own ideals through a democratic process, and that through this process society should weigh the wants and needs of it's members and create a world that's good for all of them? That isn't much more than a slight adjustment to the current democratic system we live in today. It is nothing more than tinkering with the current system slightly, in hope that it will create a slightly better world.

Given I doubt most people would consider the current state of affairs 'Utopian', even disregarding my own definition of what a 'Utopia' is, I feel fairly comfortable saying that the average person would not consider this new system to be 'Utopia' in any meaningful sense. The dictionary definition of 'Utopia' is, after all, a world where everything is perfect; and a slight improvement to the old system does not make it 'perfect'. A world where everyone has plentiful access to food, drink, and shelter is a better world, but it is not a utopia.

If we take my definition, on the other hand, which takes into account the fact that 'perfection' is a subjective, individual measure, we can go even farther than saying that a slightly better democratic system is not utopian. Because democracy implies compromise between different and opposing factions within the population- Compromises of their ideals- we can conclude that democracy is an anti-utopian institution. That is not to say that democracy is bad, but the mechanics of democracy mean that anyone who engages in the democratic process is tacitly accepting that they must compromise their vision of utopia in order to get some small part of their vision enacted in reality.

This is not bad, but it means that attempting to treat this framework as genuinely 'utopian' is laughable for self-evident reasons.

As far as other conceptions of what 'Utopia' is that have come up in this thread are concerned, I haven't seen any others that really disagree with my position. At most, they are framing the same things that I am saying in a different way.

Click to shrink...

That is a limited view on other types of Utopias. How about this: An Utopia made of other Utopias? Where say the cogs of the Great Machine that are compatible with the work go be NPCs for a PC in a virtual world that is their own Solipsistic Domain. Where a person can be a Cog on a Monday, go enter the Blood Arena to beat the shit out of others and get the shit beaten out of them in turn (by using a proxy body probably) on a Tuesday, go lay on a cloud drugged out of their mind on a Wednesday, go be nothing but a caveman working in the dirt on a Thursday, go have all the sex in the Red Light Utopia on Friday, do a shift as a wall on a Saturday and go be the PC in their own Solipsistic Domain on Sunday. Does this look like a little tweak to our current democratic system to you?

@Dmol8, very frankly you didn't understand what I had to say in the least. If you are going to self-aggrandisingly 'call people out' I would appreciate it if you actually addressed what was said, not what you believe to have been said.

Click to shrink...

In my view, utopian villain plots tend to come in two broad forms. The first is the villain that wants to change society, or conquer the world, in order to implement some kind of new idea that will make the world a better place. This is is usually opposed because the villain is flawed for one reason or the other, and would likely just be despotic, or because it would oust the democratic agency of people in society. This can be really interesting to explore. In Tales of Xillia the main villain is actually acknowledged to be capable of achieving his goals, as he is just that remarkable. However, it is likely that those who come after him will not be as remarkable, and so the world he creates will likely crumble into something worse than what came before. It creates a good storytelling tension.

The second is the villain that wants to change people at the fundamental level, usually with some kind of Human Instrumentality Project. A lot of these get opposed because of the implied ousting of bodily agency. Even if the villain's vision for change isn't flawed, unilaterally changing the minds and bodies or everyone is hardly acceptable.

In the general case it's going to be fine to oppose someone who is willing to sacrifice lives to achieve their goals, even if those goals are well-intentioned. If some platinum haired psychopath tells you that just by killing two or three million people we can achieve world peace, saving far more lives than those sacrificed, it would certainly not be heroic to let that two or three million die. Moreover, visionso f utopia can be easily flawed, or may have unintended consequences which aren't being accounted for.

Click to shrink...

Ford? The difference between the two types you've mentioned is in the fact that in the first the person doing it doesn't have a magic button to change everyone and so must settle for conquest. In both cases it is a solipsistic enforcement of their own will and vision, not a well thought out action for improving the world.

Click to shrink...

Wow. My bad got caught up in being angry at everyone else and failed to get my actual point across. My bad. My point is in that well thought out action for improving the world: A true Eutopia while being built would be able to detect the flaws that would turn it into a Dystopia and then course correct and even stop building some systems up until they could be fixed or replaced to account for the flaw that is discovered and then fix it or at least mitigate it so that the flaw itself is not destructive to the rest of the system.

Also a lot of people think that every Utopian Ideal so far tried has failed because they were flawed and not because in execution most of the time the Ideal was used just as a mirage to hide the despotic corrupt oligarchy that was being built beneath. A Utopia has to be built in good faith to even have a chance of being an Eutopia instead of a Dystopia.

 

[Night]

That depends on if you consider mass mind control as a flaw or not; because that's the only way such a thing could happen. Without mass mind control there will always be at least some conflicts that can't be resolved.

Click to shrink...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Frankly this objection says more about your beliefs regarding people than it does about people actually.

 

[kittygirl]

Seeking utopia is not the problem. It is the action of the utopia and the methods used. A villain who just destroys and burns is not creating a utopia. You must ask peoples what they wanna before you do your thing. Maybe it's not possible to ask every person? Then don't focus on changing the world. You know who else wanna change the world? Ozai.

 

[Nikkolas]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Frankly this objection says more about your beliefs regarding people than it does about people actually.

Click to shrink...

Honest question, do you believe humans can bring an end to all conflict through their own power? That the light of reason can truly erase all forms of bigotry or hatred from the billions across the globe?

 

[Water123]

Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence, friend. If it depends on who's building it then how could it simultaneously be a dystopia if the 'right' person built it? I am confuzzled right meow. ^_^;

Click to shrink...

I mostly am on AH.com and everything I write on this site is basically a glorified shitpost I mean, ultimately, it depends on whether you define Utopia as a "good" society or a "perfect" society. You could have a good life in someone's perfect society, but it depends on who that is. And i mean, there's also the question on whether anyone is qualified to saw what the perfect world is. I mean, we all know what White Nationalist Walter wants, and that it's pretty shit, but what about someone more normal who just doesn't know what they're doing?