Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on utopian societies
Essays on utopian societies
Essays on utopian societies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on utopian societies
Utopia Sir Thomas More writes, in his book Utopia, about a society that is perfect in practically ever sense. The people all work an equal amount and everything they need for survival is provided. Most importantly is that everyone living in this perfect society is happy and content with their everyday lives. In this society everybody supports everyone. The community is only as strong as its weakest link. For society to progress everyone must work together. Opponents of the Utopian system, however, feel that the strong should not have to look after the weak. Progress would be maximized if all the resources are spent on the people most qualified to help society. A Utopian society, as perfect as the one described by More, has never really been tested in the real world so it is hard to say if it will work or not. The ideals preached through the Utopian can and should be learned from. A united group of people is much stronger then a few powerful men. Society could benefit greatly by striving to bring more unity among the people of the world. The life of the Utopians is nearly perfect. They work short hours and in the profession in which they most desire. The work is not overly hard and everyone takes an equal turn doing the jobs which nobody wishes to engage in. Their day consists of six hours of work before lunch, and three hours after, with a two hour break for lunch (More 137). In return for this work the Utopians are provided not with money but with the food, water, and shelter that is needed to sustain life. Everyone gets an equal amount of these necessities regardless of how hard one worked. This is not a source of tension seeing as everyone works equally as hard. People are taught throughout their childhood that one should work to better the community rather than working for the selfish reasons of personal wealth. The economy in the world today is not one which focuses on the progression of the community but instead is one which promotes the individual. The individual must somehow make himself important to the community in which he lives so that he can prosper. This can be done by working hard or by having great natural abilities. The more valuable one is to society, the better ones life will be. The people who are more beneficial to society deserve to live a life th... ... middle of paper ... ...ould do their best to help society in the best way they possibly can. As long as everyone has this same feeling towards progress on the whole then the community will continue to grow. People today see the world in a more Darwinist point of view. The strong will survive and continue to prosper while the weak will fail and die off. The time and money spent keeping the weak alive is a waste. It should instead be spent in a way so that society can become more advanced. The weak just slow down the development of the society. The problem with the system today is that one can not foresee the future and one can not be sure that untested system will work. The Darwinist system allows for rapid development. Society is not slowed down by the weak. The Utopian society, on the other hand, is very good in that one never knows how important a person or a group of people are until they are needed for something great. Under the Utopian system everyone is kept alive and well in case they are needed for anything. If everyone could embrace the Utopian ideas then it could work, but as soon as one person begins to doubt the system then the whol
and it manifests itself in a multitude of cultural and social ways.” The author discussed the problems that occur from economic and social classes. The purpose of this argument is to debate on what kind of people will be successful in life. Everyone has a shot at being successful, and that they do with it is
how a utopia would not be good: The Receiver feels the pain of knowing there is more to life than life in the utopia, the community has no variety, and the Chief Elders take away all aspects of freedom humans have. For today’s society, living in a utopian society may not be far away. We today could undergo a terrible disaster and feel the need to live in a utopia. However to live in a utopia is to live like “ants,” and humans were not meant to be
...he normal civilized lifestyle. Bernard becomes, “…reconciled by his success, he yet refuses to forego the privilege of criticizing this order”(145). Since Bernard is receiving immense respect, he has forgotten all his rebellious beliefs about the society or his “order”, he starts to enjoy a lifestyle that everyone else in the World State enjoys. Sadly, Bernard loses his reputation shortly after as John would not meet the guests at Bernard’s party. Bernard saddened by his reputation in society, becomes his old self again. As Bernard lost his reputation, “The reputation of success had evaporated; he was soberly his old self again…”(163). His reputation was very temporal as Bernard acts as himself again and becomes solitary again. Ridiculed for his abnormalities, Bernard became a totally new person while enjoying his moment of fame which did not last very long.
he sees that it is nothing like he imagined it to be, John runs away from the this society to a lights
In Utopia, a perfect society exists in which everybody has a vocation that creates a corporate vocation making a perfect society. Utopia means "no place." This meaning can be easily comprehended because there is no such thing as a perfect society. So it wouldn't exist anywhere, no place. In Thomas More's utopian society, everyone has a purpose to add to the community's vocation, which is how the private and corporate vocations are linked together. Also in this utopian society, people live together in harmony. This is because every person needs the next person to survive.
“Their world didn’t allow them to take things easily, didn’t allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy" (Huxley 41). John The Savage is the son of the director and Linda. Tomakin abandoned them on the reservation. Tomakin did not even know John existed until he appeared in London as an adult. He is the only character to grow up in the outside world. John gets his name because he grew up on an Indian savage reservation in New Mexico. John is considered to be the protagonist of the story, and a figure of what the old world order used to be like. In Aldous Huxley’s book, Brave New World, John the Savage is clearly an unorthodox character because he does not fit in physically, intellectually, or morally.
Utopian societies are often thought to be impractical based upon the human idea that no one person or thing can ever be completely perfect. Because this idea of perfection is practically impossible to achieve, various controlled techniques need to be used in order to create a utopia. Aldous Huxley states in his foreword to Brave New World that the creation of a perfect utopia is quite possible if we as humans “refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens” in attempts at creating social stability (xiv). Huxley’s Brave New World “depicts a World State where there is absolute social stability made possible by government-controlled research in biology and psychology” (Woiak 4). While the existence of this utopian
From the American Revolution to independence movements in Latin America, the forming a commonwealth free of vice, tyranny, and inequality has always been one of man’s greatest intentions. In this commonwealth, everyone’s needs are met, society is free of all hierarchies, and everyone works for the common good. However, history has proved that this commonwealth can never truly exist. On a rudimentary level, it is impossible for any large group to properly function without someone or a group of people creating and enforcing the necessary laws and customs. On a deeper level, it seems impossible to eschew avarice, inequality, war, and many other aspects commonwealths face. Sir Thomas More, a lawyer, statesman, and philosopher imagined this perfect commonwealth and dubbed it, Utopia. In Utopia, Sir Thomas More describes a place where all citizens are content with their lives and there is no social inequality. However, readers easily notice contradictions that are present in this seemingly perfect place. In their treatment of gold and iron, slaves, and gender roles, Utopians prove to readers that a commonwealth free of hierarchies, vice, and tyranny can never truly exist.
In 1516 Thomas More published Utopia, which is the a beginning of the idea of a perfect society that was possibly the prominent humanist reform of a culture rebirth called the renaissance. More observes Six hour work days that were enough to contribute to a comfortable life in a community. Enough to produce plenty of everything if everyone contributes surprisingly, yet obvious if the unemployed, beggars or the people doing unnecessary work started to be instrumental in what the human race consumes. In utopia he viewed that “ Everyone gets a fair share, so there are never any poor men or beggars. Nobody owns anything, but everyone is rich.” Obviously through history people have normally been segregated into two groups workers that produce for minimal reward, and those who gain from that production from five hundred years ago to modern culture. Noticing that “No living creature is naturally greedy” as more says, yet if the society breeds a certain culture than the people will have that, so reward and incentify greed you get more rapacity same with other so called human nature such as
...urgeoisie and the industrial system in general (especially when comparing it to our current economic crisis), it seems to me that the moral values in Utopia are extremely significant to the development of humanity. Of course, as with a text like The Bible, not all things are meant to be taken literally. I do not concur with everything More wrote about in Utopia. However, I do believe that the overall “act with good intentions and good things will come to you” philosophy is a very important one for all humans to adhere to. I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to human nature, and sadly, in seeing the parallels between Marx’s grievances and our modern state of economic and political affairs, I have little hope that any sort of change in our own government would be successful. Human nature is to be greedy, and unfortunately, I do not think that is ever going to change.
A utopia does not necessarily need to be absolutely perfect to be accepted by all the people. For example, in Brave New World, John says, “But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want
John role in Brave New World, is an important one, in that he is of the only characters to clearly articulate the atrocities of this society; how no one is truthfully happy, knows what love is, or is fully aware of their situation. And it is this realization of the world around him that eventually drives him into insanity. Everything from his mother’s eventual death, to his inability to control his lust, causes him to lose hope. Throughout the novel, John struggles to fit into society, but because he had never been brought up under the conditions of the World State, he was not able to assimilate. John’s strengths are his intelligence and determination, but his downfall’s are his s...
However while this indeed does benefit society as a whole one must question whether it benefits its members and their own personal happiness. Certainly More’s Utopia benefits its people in ...
All Utopians work. There are no rich people, deadbeats, or other people who go through life not working. Most people prefer to work and live in the city, but the work on the farms must be done as well. So, there is a rotation: everyone gets a turn to live and work in the city, and then must live and work on a farm for period of time. Since everyone must do this, there is no complaining from anyone. They see working on the farm as fulfilling their duty to the nation.
More's Utopia, then, presents a nice theory, but one too abstract, too Platonic, too rationalistic, and with too little understanding of real human motivations to be workable. However, it is hardly a useless or worthless work -- it contains many profound psychological insights, quite a bit of humor, and many very good points. I doubt that it is workable as a complete social system, however.