Looking Forward: The City on a Hill Revisited

      So this is it. We've reached the end of the semester, and aside from feeling totally burnt out, I think I've learned quite a bit about utopias over the past fifteen-odd weeks. We've seen shining republics (with pastries), spiritual cities, theocracies, classical utopias, weird martian utopias, modern dystopias, and lots of explosions in an utopian/dystopian(?) Michael Bay film.

Leftovers again?!

      At the beginning of the semester, most of us agreed that an utopia is not a perfect place; rather, it is better than the one we currently occupy. Similarly, we will probably never be able to achieve a perfect world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

      I think I may have realized something this semester. What if the definition of utopia is wrong? What if, in our real-world sense, the closest we ever get to an utopia is by helping each other and trying to make the world a better place?

      In that case, our “City on a Hill” is already here. When we help others, we come the closest to an utopia that we ever will. As the saying goes, “It's not the end result of the quest that matters; it's the getting there that counts.”

      What if an utopia is the process by which we try to make the world a better place?

(Michael Bay meme taken from www.joblo.com. Comparative photo of The Island and Transformers 3 taken from www.reddit.com. Image of the City on a Hill taken from insidetheshrink-dailygrace.blogspot.com.)

Utopia-ception

This evening I treated myself and my boyfriend to a night at the movie theatre. We decided to see Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise, because we had no idea what any of the other movies were. Oblivion is basically an end-of-the-Earth movie, where the moon has been blown up by an alien population, which caused earthquakes and tsunamis, making the planet virtually uninhabitable. The whole Earth population had been relocated to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. Tom Cruise's character John is based on Earth with a partner, Victoria, to help repair the machines that harness sea water for energy. Along the way, John gets a little too curious and learns that the plan for life on Titan is not what it seems to be. 

It is a little bit of a stretch, but I can definitely see utopian concepts in this film. When Earth was rendered uninhabitable, a plan needed to be formulated, thus Titan. At his home on Earth, John and Victoria's lives are dictated in every aspect. They rely on their higher-ups to send them all supplies and take orders from them for missions each day. Their house is streamlined and almost antiseptic how clean and white it is. Adhering to all the rules, Victoria is afraid to bring anything from outside into her house, fearing contamination. John blindly takes orders to kill off any aliens that he comes in contact with, because they are still the enemy despite looking exactly like a human being. 

John and Victoria's home

One of the more utopian aspects that I found was the fact that the society, in the end, could not hold together. In the texts that we have read for this class, the utopian plan does not make everyone content and there is some type of disintegration of the community or an attempt at a revolt. 

Even during the previews I was bombarded with another Utopian film, Elysium. First of all, it looks really cool and stars Matt Damon, so I'm definitely going to see it. From what I could tell from the preview, Elysium is essentially a big space station that is where all the best people go. There's nothing bad on Elysium (the preview showed a woman being scanned and showing trace amounts of cancer and then having it taken away immediately). But, back on Earth, life is a different story: the planet is in shambles and there is a rogue group of people, Matt Damon's character included, that feel the need to take down Elysium if they want to save the human population. The preview left a lot to the imagination, but it definitely got me hooked.

These two films show me that we are fascinated with utopias and dreaming of another way of life. Also, because utopias can be a commentary on things in our current world, it sure seems that film writers have some issues with the way things are going. I do not ever see a time when utopian literature or films will not exist, they are simply too compelling.

A City Without Crime

Precrime, arresting people before they have actually committed a crime. Does this make sense? Does this protect the people, protect their rights? Does this make for a utopia?

My answer to all of these questions is a big, fat NO.

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of triplets being able to predict when, how, and who for murders that will take place four days from the present is far fetched. Not only that, but the inhumane treatment of these three people, or at least that is what they would have been if they were not kept in that electrolyte bath and shot up with drugs, is morally wrong. Along with immoral actions, the officers arresting people for actions they have not yet committed completely against constitutional rights. According to Agatha, these people still had a choice...yes they dreamed it would happen, but the individual still had a choice to complete the action, such as with John. So these people may have never even completed the crime, and yet they are arrested for an indefinite amount of time for thinking about it.

Does a world without crime lead to utopia?

In utopia, people tend to be generally happy, suffer little, and put the many before the one. In Minority Report, while there was no murder, there were still other crimes, people turned to drugs, and protected themselves. The people still had to cautious, they were not completely safe – a major part of utopia. John and Lara suffered terribly with the loss of their child, Sean. In the first scene, the woman was committing adultery, which may have meant that she was not happy or satisfied in her marriage. John had to get drugs off the street. Lamar set up John to save his own butt. Precrime does not seem to make a utopic society. Yes it brings down the murders, one less way for people to suffer, but they have other things that happen that show that the people in this society do suffer.

I would rather continue living life in this society, with murder, than a world with precrime. First, they treated the triplets inhumanely, they also ignored our constitutional rights, and finally people still are not exceptionally happy.

It was a good movie, but nowhere near utopia...or dystopia...it was just there.

Word Count: 383

Is an Utopia a Reality?

      George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is possibly my favorite piece of dystopian literature. Sure, the regime lacks the seemingly well-placed love and cleverness of the one in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but I think that's why I enjoy Oceania's governmental system. These people aren't in it to create a better world or help the people who need it; they're in it for the power, plain and simple.

      But, I've always enjoyed reading about villains who are power-hungry and evil simply for the sake of being evil.

      I also really liked reading the philosophical debate at the end of this book. I've always kind of enjoyed philosophy, so this kind of battle of wits excites me.

Here is my favorite quote from this book: “ 'We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull' ” (274).

      In a way, O'Brien, the speaker here, is wrong; however, in a way he's right. Someone once asked me how many realities there are. I immediately just wanted to say “one,” but once I thought about it I realized the answer is sort of “infinitely many.” (Actually, they're not infinite, but the number is so high they may as well be infinite.)

 It's not quite as fancy as a "multiple earths" theory.

     Now, stay with me here as I describe my wonky theory. There is one reality in which all things actually happen as they are. This reality is called “Truth.” All of our perceptions and personal takes on “Truth” are the other numerous realities. (I call them “the Infinities.”) Here's an example:

I'm sitting in the dining hall at a table by myself. At the table next to me is a group of three people chatting. Now, in the prime, true reality (“Truth”), they're making fun of my haircut; however, I think (from what little I eavesdrop) that they're talking about basketball. My perception is one of the “Infinities.” While my thoughts aren't true to what actually happens, they're true to me, and therefore realistic. So, in consequence, there are infinitely many realities based upon our daily perceptions.

Get it?

"Welcome to Coblentz Dining Hall: where the recipes don't make sense and your perception of reality doesn't matter."

      So, with so many realities, is it even possible to have an utopia? Sure, one may exist in “Truth,” but what if everyone perceives it differently? It may be perfect, but it won't be utopian to some people because it won't line up with their expectations and perceptions of perfection. If they don't want to go along with it, how can the society be perfect/better? How, then, can it be utopian?

(Multiple earths picture taken from 123rf.com. Image of Coblentz taken from youvisit.com.)

My Utopian Experience

For the upcoming paper due, I am writing on James Hilton's Lost Horizon. This is about a place that seems to be a utopia but where people really do not enjoy their time there. It got me thinking about a time in my life where I had a similar experience. 

In January 2011 at the ripe age of 18, I was admitted into an inpatient facility for an eating disorder. I was there for about 2 months and so many aspects of my life there can be looked upon as utopian. 

Remuda Ranch was located in Bowling Green, VA, about an hour away from any type of civilization. We had horses for equine therapy, art therapy, a full medical staff on site and a chapel for non-denominational worship. 

For starters, everything was planned out. We had our day's activities lined up for us, full of therapy groups of varying degrees.

When I arrived I had hours of intake processes to go through. I had a complete physical evaluation, my luggage was gone through and all the bad things were taken away. 

Each patient was placed on a certain grade: red, yellow or green. Red patients had the most restrictions (being driven in a golf cart from building to building, getting the toilet flushed for you by a nurse, no choice in meals). Yellow and green patients had more physical abilities (walking between buildings, going on trail rides with the horses we were assigned). 

In a lot of fictional utopias, controlling mentalities is a factor. Well, Remuda had that too. Each morning, noon and night the patients would line up to receive our meds in handy paper cups. If we were having an unpleasant emotion, all we had to do was turn to the trusty psychiatrist for a new pill. 

Like in Plato's Republic, our access to books, music and movies was limited. We did not have any cable TV to see what was going on in the world. All magazines were banned. Any books we wanted to read had to be approved by our therapist. All the movies we watched were rater PG or G. Each CD was purchased from the religious section. It all became so monotonous and mindless. It was scary being so out of touch with things when I was released after just two months.

It is very interesting how in a place where we were supposed to be healing mentally and physically, I seemed to lose myself. I did not have to think about anything, just look at my weekly schedule to see what I would be doing that day. 

Looking back, everything about Remuda screams "UTOPIA!!!!!!!" yet to the patients it was anything but. I felt like I had Big Brother looking over my every move. There were so many rules about what we couldn't do and I felt like there was nothing that we could do. While I was there, I was counting down the days until I could go home. I know that I was benefitting from the ranch in the long run, but while I was there, getting home was the only thing on my mind. 

Slavery and More

     I have been brought up with the idea of slavery being something that is negative. I look at Thomas More’s Utopia and wonder if I can fathom the idea of slavery being a tool rather than an atrocity. I see that the possibility of people paying off their debt to society as something that I may not want to accept as a necessarily good idea, but there are little options when people transgress against their society.

     For example, we have jails and prisons to rehabilitate people who owe society for a wrong-doing. We have hospitals to rehabilitate people who are ill (specifically mentally ill). We have schools to teach people to conform to societal norms so that people will not fall into the category of transgression. We also have people that are so impoverished that slavery would be a better option than dying of starvation.

      When I take a look at these factors I realize that although I may not necessarily agree with everything that More says, I realize he has thought through a plan for an Utopia and that plan is better than no plan at all. So, before I jump to a conclusion where I view Thomas More’s Utopia in a negative light, from the perspective of how I was raised, I must look deeper into the functions of society so that I can realize some other factors that I did not see before.

      So, instead of the breaking up of families, starvation, torment and the other disparities that come from the institution of slavery, I propose that a work study program be instilled. It would be more beneficial if we could put these people into a career path and allow them to become upstanding citizens of society. We would require a mandatory sentence to rehabilitating education that leads the citizen to become a working unit of society.

     The mandatory sentence would work with people who are doctors who can inspect the citizen’s mental well-being so that the transformation of the individual not only is physical, but psychological as well. This insures that people are working together. It makes a system of education and checks and balances that hold the individual responsible for being the best citizen he or she can be.

Serving One Another Over Ourselves

For many reasons and for many people socialism is an ugly or scary word. Especially for those of us who have grown up in the United States of “It’s mine and it’s the biggest and best,” we find it difficult to conceive of letting go of our control over purchase power and in a sense the liberty to make our own decisions. People believe that if the government has too much control and if they support us to much that we will lose the ability or the right to make our own choices. For me and my own exposure to utopian literature it seems that the “better place” always has some connection to a socialistic structure or another form of nationalism or communism that is similar. Why then does a “better place” rely on such foundations? In order for improvement there must be an elimination of many injustices that exist in our own society today. 

Many proponents of these forms of government believe that all citizens have a right to health care, education, food, and shelter. Many people would argue that these are the basic necessities of life and that no one should be in a position where these aren’t granted. In most utopian works the founder or author goes a step further and ensures that all people are employed, thus there are no poor, and that because of their contribution to society they deserve access to serve their basic needs. In Looking Backward, Bellamy describes a place where “government has extended” and “the social system no longer offers a premium on dishonesty” (33).  In large contrast to how we run things today, Bellamy explains that “when the nation assumed the responsibilities of capitol those difficulties vanished” (33).  

 In this fictitious place there are no political parties or politicians, every decision and framework is made to serve the good of the people. The elimination of politics has also eliminated corruption. It’s very interesting to step back and really analyze which parts of this proposed place make us feel uncomfortable. Or are we all on board with Bellamy’s view of utopia? And if so, why are we? Is it that everyone is taken care of and that for the most part everyone makes an “equal” effort to contribute? 

I find it interesting to compare the issues that we vote on today during elections to the issues that were written about as a proposed utopia years in our past. How far have we really come in creating a better world and what are we willing to give up to make that world a reality? Dr. Leete replies to the narrator that their “people value humanity over self-service.” How many of us can say that we truly practice that today? And if we made a conscious effort to try do you think that we would create our own small part of a better world? 

Image # 1:  http://rockrivertimes.com/wpapp/wp-content/uploads/socialism_elephant-W.jpg

Image #2:  http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign/imagecache/960/article_feature/pinocchio.jpeg

Image #3:http://thoughtsofaindianteenager.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/no-corruption.jpg

Image #4: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH9kk8KY1dfI74jGv4uBQp-pzJR9n1a0qPQP7JwfXO1WpUiyl1Vh7GLkIxYABE-8fF3k0mBTn7aL67_9YhuSmvplT7n3YmpujDTzkn5SP8qSox48yjwRopDHAoayGqn1p3biFPqf6p1gnR/s1600/a.aaa-Just-a-little-humanity.jpg

Something is Missing...?

Something that has bothered me since we began reading our utopian works has been the lack of talk or interest in the social life of Utopia. So far it has been praise and work, work and praise...what about personal relationships?

Maybe I find this so problematic because our society puts so much emphasis on being social and having relationships...I'm not sure, but it's a part that is lacking for me. I see that there is religion, there is family, the is marriage, etc but what about friendship or a good relationship with each other? Are our good actions More talks about suppose to be what makes a a good relationship with someone?

St. Benedict made every thing very intrapersonal, More had everything general about the society and important relationships such as husband and wife, but even then there were no feelings mentioned. Well, except, “in the choice of mate, which may cause delight or disgust for the rest of their lives, people are completely careless” because they are not seeing the entire package. What about marrying someone for who they are, not what they look like? (Before people start harping, I do understand that these are different times and marriage practices are much different). Peoples feelings are not really taken into consideration, except for fear or pleasure (which is connected to happiness).

Feelings are personal and identify with the individual which most of the works tend to take away when describing utopia: the removal of individuality. If there was one issue I found in all the works, I find this to be the most irritating. I want to do me, for me. I want to make me, my family, and my friends happy. I want to connect with them, be more for them than a neighbor or “daughter”.

Again, maybe it's because the works are looking more at society, but if they ignore feelings and individuality then they are ignoring a part of society that can lead to corruption. In utopia do people not have these feelings? Do they not desire to be extremely close? I just do not know and this I find frustrating because I want to know what these authors think of the issue.

In other utopian or dystopian novels I have read, the main characters connected with their feelings and individuality and had to leave the “utopian” societies. This may be the reason why I find this to be such an important aspect for me.

Word Count: 411

A Map to Utopian Philosophic and Religious Beliefs

This week's presentation presents a rough sketch of how the philosophic and religious beliefs of the Utopians may have connected with each other and with classical efforts.

(This post contains approximately 533 words.)

More's Utopia Still Needs a Bit More

Being honest, I thought that Mr. Thomas More and I were not going to get along very well. Books from his time written that were written about other countries tended to be about one of three things. How to conquer, how to exploit, or how to fix those poor uncivilized heathen savages. It'll be a few more centuries and a jump to different continent before Manifest Destiny and all that awful stuff comes along, but the basic ideas remain mostly unchanged. I was certain that he was going to say that people from other lands need to be educated and corrected.

I was pleasantly surprised early on in my reading. Raphel describes “quite a few customs from which (More's country) might take example in order to correct (their) errors (More, pg 13). Excellent! The outsiders have customs and ideas that the English can learn from!

Despite my joy, I still think that More's Utopia needs some serious improvements. I'm reading his book with modern, jaded eyes, so I think that his once radical ideas are not quite good enough. The people in Utopia aren't suffering, for the most part. Heck, the slaves in this story probably have a better time than some of the more radical monks we've read about. Men and women both learn trades! There's plenty of food and a gardening competition! Yaaaay!

Better than a little bit of cheese and some wine.

 
But, better is still pretty far from perfect. There are slaves. Sure, they're people who probably would have died otherwise, but, there are slaves.

People who are sick and suffering are allowed to end their lives. I don't disagree with that, but I do have problem with the fact that they are encouraged to do so. “Really Bill, you're pretty much a waste of flesh and food now, just kill yourself. It's better for everyone.” I think that's a bit much.
No one has property so there aren't any fights, but no one has privacy either. I don't care if the door is mine or not, but please give me a lock for it. I don't need to own the lock, I just need to have it available, please.

Women are more equal in this Utopia than they were in 16^th century England, sure, but it's still not nearly enough. Women must marry into their husband's households, do all the cooking in addition to their trades, can only accompany their husbands on wars, and are generally subservient. It's better, but that doesn't mean it's good.

More's Utopia also has a few other tricky little areas, like the praise of genocide and how there's overall religious freedom, except for atheists of course. Atheists get nothing. I like this Utopia more than anything else we've seen so far, and I think it comes the closet to providing for it's citizens equally. I still want more than that though. This utopia is certainly better, but it's not good enough for me yet. More equality, less slaves. That's really what me and my modern views are looking for.

( Image taken from feedio.net)

A Funny Thing Happened During Allocated "Procrastination" Time...

I'm going to take a quick step out of my ordinary blogging style (An angel, the Devil, and MJ), and discuss something quickly that I found particularly interesting.

As a frequent online role-player on Dreamwidth, I find myself bombarded by a variety of role-playing games where one can do pretty much anything with their characters that they could possibly want at pretty much any time. There are games for horror, games for sex (not that I would ever join one of those or anything) and the like. I frequent a place called bakerstreet, that is a "meme" community, specializing in short, one-shot game threads for people to play in. There are usually topics one can use from (or use a random generator to get a random number for) and character options to keep your character in the "world" of the meme when tagging (aka: playing) with other people.

I have been playing in a long-running "thread" for the last few weeks in a particular meme, and it wasn't until today that I realized something. This meme is a Dystopia Meme. The word "Dystopia" is so frequently used in fiction for me that I didn't even recognize until now that it relates directly to this class and what we're working on. I don't think that an actual "Utopia" meme has ever appeared in this roleplaying community, perhaps because Utopia would not mean drama, and unless you're a PWP writer without a life, that's no fun at all.

Now, some of the options chosen by the meme's creator, steahl, are very interesting. There is a subject of "Class" as one of the options to be chosen. S/he gives options from "High/Royalty" to "Transitory", with everything in the middle from "alien" to "pariah" to "created". I find the fact that class is such an important issue very interesting in this meme. It reminds me of Plato's "The Republic", and the importance of the class within the city Socrates had created. This sort of a topic is almost never seen in memes, since "class" isn't something most Americans think of. Even in historical or "royal" AUs (that is, Alternate Universes), class doesn't come up, but steahl sees is as an important part of the meme. In #22 of the "Prompts" section, s/he even mentions "the City". An interesting mention, probably relating back to "the Republic".

The next section, the one I just mentioned, is the Prompts section. It's fairly standard fare for a meme, from "mix and mingle" to "SCIENCE" and "Brave New World". They throw in little references to all sorts of different utopian and dystopian books and movies, which, again, I didn't even think to relate to a class on Utopia until just now. There's even a subtle nod to Firefly, which I have always seen as one of the ultimate dystopian stories.

The most important thing in this meme to me is that this is all set in a futuristic setting. Unlike Plato or More, who see Utopia as something that can be achieved now, this meme sets up utopia (or, in this case, dystopia) as something that has to be made in the future.

Just FYI: My thread involves a "created" character living in a futuristic New York that is blotted out by pollution and riddled with crime and drugs while the elite sit on their high towers. In other words: Standard Dystopian fare. What do you think makes this "standard" for Dystopia? Why do you think I failed to notice that this was so intimately related to this class?

What are your thoughts on this? Besides the fact that I am clearly a huge loser.

Also, if you work out which character is mine, DO NOT EVER TELL ME THAT YOU KNOW.

Also, standard disclaimer: I haven't read all of the threads, some of them could very well be NSFW (that is internet speak for Not Safe For Work/School).

Raphael Hythloday: Unreliable Narrator for Greater Understanding?

The entire description and interpretation of the island Utopia rests solely on Raphael Hythloday, an experienced sailor who traveled with experienced explorer Amerigo Vespucci on multiple occasions. He is the first (perhaps unwittingly) to circumnavigate the globe, and a sailor who learns from traveling like Ulysses and travels to learn like Plato (10-11). This is certainly all very impressive, and extremely admirable. Certainly, More couldn’t be so lucky to have the Raphael Hythloday tell him about the Utopian island.

That is, until we realize the meaning of his name.

As we learned, his surname Hythloday literally means “nonsense-distributer” or “nonsense-peddler” (7). This, I theorize, tells us all what the Utopian description really is: nonsense. It is awfully convenient that, as Peter Giles admits, “there is no mortal alive today [who] can tell you so much about unknown people and lands” (10). Now, I am not saying (although possible) that Hythloday is fabricating his entire story (for example, he never traveled with Vespucci) but that the specific details of false.

This would certainly explain some rather contradictory and inconceivable notions of the island Utopia to real-life Sir Thomas More. For instance, the fact that lawyers “are excluded entirely” (75) strikes me as extremely odd for More’s vision. More, after all, eventually became the highest and most powerful lawyer in all of England.

Wikipedia.org; "Thomas More"

 “I hate my job.”

Another example involves the unheard of tolerance of religion (except for atheism, which is opening a whole other can of worms). Real-life Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor of England, prosecuted English Protestants under King Henry VIII. Later, in the 1530s, when Henry broke away from the Catholic Church and required all English citizens to recognize the king as Supreme Head of the English Church, More refused, stating that his Catholic faith could not recognize the king as a sort of “new pope.” As a result, More was sentenced to death and was beheaded in 1535.

Here’s the real kicker: the reason that there was religious intolerance in much of human history is the exact same reason that Hythloday says there is religious tolerance in the island Utopia. When a fellow Utopian ignored the law and continued to preach against others, “he was tried on a charge, not of despising their religion, but of creating a public disorder” (85). According to history, if there were a person without your religion preaching against your own faith, then he will endanger the safety of the community and the land.

There are two possibilities here. First, More-the-author may legitimately think lawyers are “a class of men whose trade it is to manipulate cases and multiply quibbles” (75) and that any religious belief (sans atheism) is fine for the communal health of society. Or, as I tend to believe, More-the-author is using satirical language, through the character of “nonsense-peddler,” to show that what he is describing is truly not utopian. After all, wouldn’t you expect Mr. Nonsense-Peddler to fudge the truth, even a little? 

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com

Now, what of our traveler’s first name? Certainly, the name reminds us of the Archangel Raphael. This name is Hebrew in meaning, translated as “healing of God.” The angel appears in the biblical Book of Tobit as a guide and extraordinary helper to Tobias, Tobit’s son. Click here to read the (very short) Book of Tobit.

How do we reconcile these two names? On the one hand, “Raphael” shows the help and guidance of God, without which Tobias would have failed his mission; on the other hand, “Hythloday” shows nonsense.

I believe that, if we combine “God’s healing” with “nonsense-peddler,” we see that the fictional sailor speaks satirical utopianism so that we may become “enlightened” by what is good for an alternative society and what is not. It is no accident that the only character to have seen the island Utopia – who the reader entirely trusts with accurate descriptions – is named such a way.

Having a Conversation with Thomas More

Our class discussion about why More chose to write Utopia in such a conversational tone that mixes fiction and non-fiction has stuck with me. As a lover of language and the power of words, I find it extremely interesting to discover how a piece was accepted by its contemporaries as well as those of us reading it today. I think that in certain cases that these two concepts interact in an exciting and intriguing way. To me it is mind boggling that a piece of writing about issues that were relevant over five hundred years ago can still be applicable today. In many ways it also makes me sad to face the reality that many of the wrongs of More’s time have still yet to be righted in our own time.  It also works simultaneously to transport us back into More’s society where he could not speak freely about his ideas without fear of punishment. In a strange way it both connects and separates us from them. 

In dealing with the content of Utopia specifically, I find myself agreeing with More’s ideas more often than disagreeing. I also am far more appreciative of the humorous and informal narrative over our previous dissertations. This actually illuminates an interesting point. Perhaps I am not solely more inclined to agree with More, but I appreciate his delivery so I feel less negativity towards his ideas. What is a specific section then that stand out to me as troublesome? 

Like a blaring red light, More’s alternative suggestion for the punishment of thieves sticks out to me in the text. I appreciated his earlier consideration and concern for the poor and how and why they’ve become poor. With this introduction into the topic I expected More’s solution to be more compassionate and humane. However, his proposal to commit the man who steals to a life of hard labor does not strike me as a punishment comparable to the crime. More does make it clear that “If he works hard, he’s not treated at all badly. He has to answer to roll-call every morning, and he’s locked up for the night-but otherwise, apart from having to work very long hours, he has a perfectly comfortable life” (30). Throughout class discussion I came to a better, or more appropriate, realization that in More’s time period that this was considered a kind punishment. But for me it begs the question about what makes life worth living? In theory this punishment is acceptable because the man will have shelter and food to eat. However, he will be kept from his family, possessions and likely any form of entertainment or pleasure. In this case is his life really of any worth to him? Or is his worth being measured by his servitude to his country? I know that this is a place where past merges with present and the cultures and times are different. Still, I think that in a small way this concept is one way to look at whether or not we are making decisions that are for the benefit of the one or the whole. 

Image #1:  http://salesmomsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Speak-Your-Mind.jpg

Image #2:  http://nearemmaus.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gadamerpicture.jpeg

Image #3:  http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/cartoon-meaning-of-life.jpg