How utopianism can avoid becoming dogmatism.

[diamantis]

I would like to expose the hidden dangers utopianism conceals, as it dictates the reach of perfection , that utopianists have imagined, by all means-as history has taught as- and thus becoming dogmatism.

To my opinion, a utopia to succeed has to remain unrealized, for not becoming a dogma, which can result only in dystopia, a totalitarian and repressive world.

[Swamidragon]

If Utopia is to become a reality humanity must become altruist, which is very unlikely

[Chester]

If Utopia is to become a reality humanity must become altruist, which is very unlikely
Well, yes, but beyond that wouldn't it also require shared, almost identical, values? That, it seems to me, is the more unlikely thing.

[The Atheist]

Well, yes, but beyond that wouldn't it also require shared, almost identical, values? That, it seems to me, is the more unlikely thing.

Correct.

One man's utopia is another's hell.

[Logos]

.... One man's utopia is another's hell. and ... "Hell is other people"--Jean Paul Sartre, No Exit :D

[The Atheist]

and ... "Hell is other people"--Jean Paul Sartre, No Exit :D

Yeah, I like that one!

[puppyshoes]

The problem about modern concepts of utopia is the complete lack of compromise. A good example would be the Marxist- Stalinist style of communism. Everyone has to become atheist,everyone must share the land. A dream that quickly turned into a hellish nightmare. Compare with the situation after world war 11, the French underground had sworn a blood oath to kill all Germans. The German population was still filled with the idea they were the master race. Withe help of certain people who were determined there would never be another European ground war. Every twenty years or so there was a war, the last two ending in world war. First there's the Common Market, from there was the European Paliment, and now the joining of their monertary system. The important thing is noninterference in the independent Nations. Just for the record, Greece, Turkey and several others were never part of The Holy Empire!

[Smoogles]

and ... "Hell is other people"--Jean Paul Sartre, No Exit :D

Ahhh Satre a tad bit "out there", love him, love the quote. It is truth, but if it were true then ethics couldn't exist, and if ethics don't exist then why can't I torture little kids on my leasure time... in the U.S.? :idea: I remember my professor telling me that if there weren't any ethics... some how it's impossible to have no ethics, can anyone refresh my memory?

[The Atheist]

Ahhh Satre a tad bit "out there", love him, love the quote. It is truth, but if it were true then ethics couldn't exist, and if ethics don't exist then why can't I torture little kids on my leasure time... in the U.S.?

You can't torture kids because human-constructed laws say you can't. That some people even flout the law to do it pretty well proves that ethics don't exist beyond the confines of societally-enforced ones.

Abortion is another great destroyer of ethical debates. People on both sides claim their morality is the correct one, and since they are opposite views, they can't both be right. They both think they are, though - to the death in some cases.

[Leabhar]

You can't torture kids because human-constructed laws say you can't. That some people even flout the law to do it pretty well proves that ethics don't exist beyond the confines of societally-enforced ones.

People didn't torture their kids much before that law came. That law protects kids against psychos, not normal people. Nature tells us not to kill our kids as they are our genes.

[Smoogles]

People didn't torture their kids much before that law came. That law protects kids against psychos, not normal people. Nature tells us not to kill our kids as they are our genes.


I just like torturing little kids in general, not my kids... no, not mine :lol:

And The Atheist hit the nail on the head.

[Leabhar]

I just like torturing little kids in general, not my kids... no, not mine :lol:

And The Atheist hit the nail on the head.

No, he was completely, utterly wrong.

[The Atheist]

People didn't torture their kids much before that law came.

Wrong. Humans, like lots of animals, have a nasty history of doing bad things to children. The laws were made to stop it happening, not because it hadn't happened.


Nature tells us not to kill our kids as they are our genes.

Our own children, certainly. What you've missed is that there is a clear evolutionary advantage to killing other children for exactly the same reasons.

[Leabhar]

Wrong. Humans, like lots of animals, have a nasty history of doing bad things to children. The laws were made to stop it happening, not because it hadn't happened.

I did not say it hadn't happened, I said psychos did it, not normal people. The law was created to stop abnormal people from doing it, and I might add it is not very successful.


Our own children, certainly. What you've missed is that there is a clear evolutionary advantage to killing other children for exactly the same reasons.

The concept of adoption has been around for a long, long time. Most normal Humans have an innate biological liking of children. Even dogs adopt.

[The Atheist]

The concept of adoption has been around for a long, long time. Most normal Humans have an innate biological liking of children. Even dogs adopt.

Dogs are a poor example, both from their domesticity and the fact that adult males often kill pups.

[Mr. Vandemar]

A universal utopian society can never exist. The balance of wealth and power will never even out. Take for example the feudal society of the aristocracy; they lived in a utopia when compared with the peasantry and serfdom...then again you can also apply that comparison to the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Besides, who says we aren't living in a Utopia? The 1/10 of the world that is bourgeois certainly is. In order to create a Utopia, mustn't we sacrifice the rights of those around us? Communism claims to be the answer to this, but for people like you and me (living in a liberal democracy and consumer nations) this is not likeable. Why should I give up my "well deserved" (please take note of the quotes, I am no capitalist) resources and luxuries for the benefit of the less fortunate?

[jgweed]

Not all utopias are socialist. Ayn Rand, for example, in Atlas Shrugged, seems to suggest another and completely different ideal community composed of free individuals. Moreover, it could be argued that society after agreeing to Hobbes' social contract would live (at least comparatively speaking) an utopian existence with the maximum freedom consonant with individual security.

[puppyshoes]

Karl Marx was an atheist, John Locke, a believer. Soviet style Communism was based on Marx, United States, and Western Democracy, Locke. John Locke said that, "all people were endowed by their Creator with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For some unknown reason almost everyone knows about Marx, yet most people never even heard of Locke. I have read both, Marx was dreamy and needed changes to work at all, and it seems that all the changes are usually for the worst. Though I'm sure that if Marx knows what has been done in his name, he's spinning in his grave. Marx was a contemporary of Dickens. He saw London close up, and visited the factorys, workhouses, and saw hell close up and personal. We must remember that philosophers aren't infallible, therefore their ideas aren't either. Locke lived in the late 17th century. His thoughts ushered in "The Age of Reason." He was a Deist, but felt that religion was a personal matter. Just for the record, the word "orthodox" means "right thinking." One person's "right thought" is another's wrong.

[Mr. Vandemar]

One person's "right thought" is another's wrong.
That is what I think about everything. That thought provokes so much more in me. How do I know that others exist? If they do, how do I know they exist like I do? If they do, why would their "right thoughts" be as "right" as mine? If there thoughts are "right", can mine be as well? How can the "truth" be ambiguous enough so that many, many, many people hold the "truth" yet none hold perfectly corresponding "truths"! How can there be more than one "truth"?

I don't expect you to answer those questions for me, because I have never been able to. As you can see, my thought process never ends with an answer. It always ends with another question. This is the eternal problem! Perhaps there are no "truth"s! I'll bet we are all "wrong", instead of us all being "righ"t.