Utopia Justifies the Means

[David Reich]

Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 (Book Burning)
Orwell's 1984 (Eternal War & Big Brother)
Huxley's Brave New World (Sex & Drugs)
Zamyatin's We (Mind Control)
Lowry's The Giver (Ignorant Population)
Le Guin's Omelas (Scapegoat)
Orwell's Animal Farm (Controlling Ideology)
Wells' Time Machine (species-wide cannibalism)

All of these, clearly dystopias - not perfect societies at all, but the opposite.  That much is obvious as an outside observer, the people there are being horribly mistreated, human rights violated, horrible harm inflicted on them.  They're clearly not happy - if only they could live in our society, they'd know how bad it was there.  A few examples should illustrate this nicely -

1984's Parsons a wreck of a man, forced into complacent idiocy and whatever the government wants. 
Fahrenheit 451's Clarisse as shallow as possible, finding the most fleeting pleasure in her TV-walls, exactly the same as everyone else.
Animal Farm's Boxer overworked for use by the pigs, completely controlled by their propaganda.
The Time Machine's Weena, barely intelligent enough for language, about to be eaten by what used to be another human and finding no help from society.

What do all of these have in common?  They're happy.  They like it how it is, and even if they knew about alternatives (they don't - and don't have to) they wouldn't want them.  Parsons loves his work for the state, enthused by it.  Clarisse is happy with her TV, as we are today - albeit a bit less. Boxer works hard and believes it's right.  Weena doesn't know anything, and is happy with her happiness.  What right do we have to say something's wrong there, if they're happy? 

I think this is an interesting problem - all our sensibility rebel against these ideas.   But if mind control or torture makes people happy, then why, from a utilitarianist point - and many others, is it bad?  How far should we go for what seems like a utopia?  Which of the books I named above were worth it? (note: please have read a few of those to contribute to the debate)  Perhaps the best example ofthis is in Brave New World - a drug, Soma, simply makes the user happy.  No side effects, and it's readily available.  Now, we would view this as artificial happiness, somehow unequal to happiness from accomplishment or even love.  But is it?  If it's the same thing to your body, what's different?

[John Hawley]

No
my reasoning is that I'm confused and therfore will answer the
question that all these above writers are posing with the simple
answer
no

On Apr 21, 9:50 pm, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bradbury's *Fahrenheit 451* (Book Burning)
> Orwell's *1984* (Eternal War & Big Brother)
> Huxley's *Brave New World* (Sex & Drugs)
> Zamyatin's *We* (Mind Control)
> Lowry's *The Giver* (Ignorant Population)
> Le Guin's *Omelas* (Scapegoat)
> Orwell's *Animal Farm* (Controlling Ideology)
> Wells' *Time Machine* (*species-wide cannibalism)
>
> *All of these, clearly dystopias - not perfect societies at all, but the

> opposite.  That much is obvious as an outside observer, the people there are
> being horribly mistreated, human rights violated, horrible harm inflicted on
> them.  They're clearly not happy - if only they could live in our society,
> they'd know how bad it was there.  A few examples should illustrate this
> nicely -
>
> 1984's Parsons a wreck of a man, forced into complacent idiocy and whatever
> the government wants.
> Fahrenheit 451's Clarisse as shallow as possible, finding the most fleeting
> pleasure in her TV-walls, exactly the same as everyone else.
> Animal Farm's Boxer overworked for use by the pigs, completely controlled by
> their propaganda.
> The Time Machine's Weena, barely intelligent enough for language, about to
> be eaten by what used to be another human and finding no help from society.
>

> What do all of these have in common?  They're *happy*.  They like it how it

> is, and even if they knew about alternatives (they don't - and don't have
> to) they wouldn't want them.  Parsons loves his work for the state, enthused
> by it.  Clarisse is happy with her TV, as we are today - albeit a bit less.
> Boxer works hard and believes it's right.  Weena doesn't know anything, and
> is happy with her happiness.  What right do we have to say something's wrong
> there, if they're happy?
>
> I think this is an interesting problem - all our sensibility rebel against
> these ideas.   But if mind control or torture makes people happy, then why,
> from a utilitarianist point - and many others, is it bad?  How far should we
> go for what seems like a utopia?  Which of the books I named above were
> worth it? (note: please have read a few of those to contribute to the
> debate)  Perhaps the best example ofthis is in Brave New World - a drug,
> Soma, simply makes the user happy.  No side effects, and it's readily
> available.  Now, we would view this as artificial happiness, somehow unequal
> to happiness from accomplishment or even love.  But is it?  If it's the same
> thing to your body, what's different?
>

> --
> Subscription settings:http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc/subscribe?hl=en

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

With a full understanding of the question, I believe that we have no right in determining right from wrong. In the end, all humane actions are perspective. On person thinking that killing someone would save a thousand other lives. He thinks this is humane while we think this is inhumane. In the end, it's all perspective.

It also brings upon the idea, "why fix something that isn't broken?"

Cheers

[nano]

I will be quaestor for a moment (which, for all non-latin people, is
'the man who asks questions')

What are rights, and are they inalienable?
What is happiness, at its core? does it require contextualisation?
also consider where you can be absolute on these things. not where you
are right now, for sure.

now, to make an actual contribution:
Justification ultimatly comes down to who can kill who, and obviously
those with more force are more successfull, and have more 'right'

as for the value of happiness- On a human level, this is completely
justified. everyone is happy, except for the few who think outside of
their bounds. the problem is that these are the people who in all
other contexts are pulling humanity AS A WHOLE forward. looking at
these decisions and 'regimes' from that, larger perspective, they are
not good at all. think of humanity like a computer program (those of
you who know of them). this program runs and runs and runs forward,
flipping through different stages and advancing itself- but one of
these things is a little tiny loop that just wont go away, and keeps
the program from continuing. a bottleneck.

now perspective wise, this is weird. a human looking up looking down.
but whatever. (i need to make a topic on this point, too)

[David Reich]

John, that's a bit useless.  Please, at least try to contribute.

Paul, I know you're sorta a nihilist about this kind of stuff, but you make some good points.  I don't fully understand what you mean about progress (that's a dangerously Marxist-seeming idea anyway), and a loop holding us back.  Progress is poorly defined anyway. 

I don't think even nihilism, though, lets you make the argument that right is whatever the strongest declares it to be. 

As for rights, I would agree that we can't really discuss that, nothing is certain, &c.

Thuy, though - do you really think there are equally strong arguments, effectively, for killing 100 people and 1?

[nano]

short reply to reply now. full reply later (meaning after the show
tonight probably)

yes, that whole loop thing is a bad metaphor. basically what i mean is
that from the average person-to-person human perspective, happiness is
all that matters. from that point of view, all of these utopias are
ideal. however, from the view point of an intellectual, or someone who
makes willful sacrifices of happiness for the pursuit of knowledge (or
whatever else) it is not. it gets in the way, these utopias want NONE
of that. and all intellectual comes from 'intellectual people' - so a
society in which everyone is always happy is never going to change:
ie. no progress. now the biggest problem is that every single person
on earth will probably fall into both of these categories at one point
or another, even throughout a single day. these utopias need continual
ignorant bliss, hence the 'extreem measures' taken to ensure that (the
drugs, book-burning, etc.

also, the 'strongest is right' is misinterpreting, again. basically,
'right-ness' just stems from incentive. brute force is one way to give
incentive. you can incite people other, subtler ways, too. morals,
status quo, etc. these are what i meant by having more right. 'having
more ability to convince others you are right'

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Like I've said, everything is through perspective. Of course killing 100 people isn't equal to killing one person. Still, it's all in the eyes of the killer.

Now the statement "The strongest is right" is a bit strange. There can be most the most powerful man on earth but if he has a wavering spirit, he is weak and wrong. Now there can be a small group of people, weak in physical strength but can influence decisions very well. They can be strong if they pursue their ability to the fullest. The strong, in this statement, isn't physical strength but rather the ability to influence others,

Cheers

[David Reich]

Paul, I think I get what you're saying now.  That eventually society could (or will) reach a stable state, from which there's no change.  That does seem to be a consistent feature of the dystopias I cited - they could continue stable indefinitely.  I mean, I understand your point, and it seems to make a lot of sense explaining utopias, but you don't seem to have a very strong opinion.  I mean, you don't give any moral to or against that way of keeping society stable.  Do you just view change as inherently positive?  I shouldn't think so, everyone in Oceania suddenly dying would be change - but not morally positive change.

I understand the 'stronger == more ability to convince' idea, but surely there's action that, when taken, is morally bad no matter the arguments for or against it.  For example, me, right now, killing you.  We both know (at least for the purpose of this argument) that neither of us have any evil secret plans to destroy the world, and in fact both of us will go live pure moral lives in an hour.  Killing you would certainly be immoral in that case, but someone could certainly convince others - in fact, everyone else in the world - that it was a moral act, by _lying_ and claiming you're an evil terr'ist and killing you was necessary.

--David

[Michael Oppenheimer]

So would anyone getting too intellectual in the Utopia be sent away or killed for the greater good? Or would they just be left to be by themselves?

[David Reich]

I'm not entirely sure this discussion is going the way I planned.  The idea isn't to plan on creating an ideal utopia, but to decide if doing so is moral.  The answer may vary from different utopias - for example, killing people painlessly in the Giver may be more (or, possibly, less) moral than torture and conversion in 1984.  Which of the dystopias I referenced are moral, are any of them?

[nano]

'dont have a strong opinion' kind of covers it actually.
the stability is an inherent problem with any 'perfect' form of
government from the outside, however it is what makes them 'perfect'
from the inside. the thing is that intelectual people always operate
'outside' in a sense, and utopias dont like that. I've already stated
this, but anyway.
also i abhor bringing morals into an argument- at least from the
absolutist stance (which is what im trying to hold), and this is
especially the case when dealing with killing.
The only deviation im going to take from the absolut is to say that
the only inherently negative thing is stability, or stopping progress.
also, i understand why you dislike 'progress' as a word. what i mean
is that humanity as a whole is moving with certain trends
intellectually, physically, etc. and while we cannot know what they
are from a larger perspective, we should have no trouble a point and
saying 'we want to get there' etc. saying stability is inherently
negative is a HUGE deviation from the absolute, and i recognize that,
because people who actively peruse knowledge have already 'chosen a
point' different than what has been chosen by those who want these
stable utopias.

i know this brings in a problem about recursion with the larger system
thing too. that is easer discussed in person, i think. probably.

[nano]

oh. well to decide wether its moral or not? well my last post kinda
messed that up

[David Reich]

Well, I suppose that yes, it is impossible to have morals at an absolutist perspective, but if you're going to be holding one then I'm afraid I don't fully understand your belief in 'progress' or change as inherently positive.  I understand that you recognise that as a contradiction, but you still failed to explain it.  To reiterate my earlier example - everyone in Oceania dying.  Surely that wouldn't be Good?  (BTW: I propose that we capitalise Good when referring to moral good).  Or everyone in Brave New World being made to live in 1984 instead - which is surely a less enjoyable, but just as stable, dystopia?  Those are 'progress' in the sense of moving to a point.  Are they automatically moral?

[Paul Gully]

maybe not from where we stand, but they wouldn't do whatever it is if they did not think it justified then. the long term morality is dependent on their upbringing. morality is entirely dependent on perspective, and you gain nothing by examining something else by your moral standards, especially if its in another cultural framework all together.

morality doesn't exist outside of the mind and even then it varies, you cant measure it like you can the flow of a river. 

im not arguing for the 'morality' of any actions, but the futility of assessing the morality of something done in another framework. you ARE working 'outside' by making these statements and observations, but not shedding the tools of 'inside'

[Andrew Towle]

Well, some people do things even when they no its not morally right, such as killing someone. Although, maybe it's their belief in the first place that it's alright to kill someone.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Correction, it's "know" not "no". The inner grammar Nazi and perfectionist self just came.

Now for us to justify killing another, we all have to agree and understand its benefits. Now, if someone is to justify killing in our society we would label them as "insane". We, ourselves, can't justify it because society has shaped and molded our minds into such a state that we subconsciously label things as just or unjust

Cheers

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Well, as I have not read...well any of those books, except for The Giver, so I can't really make an informed decision. But I think that the Utopia in The Giver is morally correct because everyone is perfectly content with their lives and no one breaks any bones, no one feels real hatred, and they live in a well controlled environment and everyone has good manners and never disobeys their elders.

[Andrew Toll]

Yes, Michael, I understand what you are saying, but is it morally
correct to keep people hemmed in to their shallow emotions, unaware of
the dangers of the world that they will never experience, confused
when they do feel real anger or sadness? There is a lot in their
emotions that they will never understand, such as when the young girl
in the story feels an emotion that's greater than just annoyance, an
emotion she can't understand, when the other child she sees on the
playground cuts in the line of children to get to a slide? Is it
morally correct to keep these people from an understanding which they
have a right to have? An understanding of themselves?

I hope you understood all that, it sounds somewhat vague, i know.

On Apr 27, 8:08 pm, Michael Oppenheimer <doomwolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, as I have not read...well any of those books, except for *The Giver*,

> so I can't really make an informed decision. But I think that the Utopia in
> The Giver is morally correct because everyone is perfectly content with
> their lives and no one breaks any bones, no one feels real hatred, and they
> live in a well controlled environment and everyone has good manners and
> never disobeys their elders.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:
> > Correction, it's "know" not "no". The inner grammar Nazi and perfectionist
> > self just came.
>
> > Now for us to justify killing another, we all have to agree and understand
> > its benefits. Now, if someone is to justify killing in our society we would
> > label them as "insane". We, ourselves, can't justify it because society has
> > shaped and molded our minds into such a state that we subconsciously label
> > things as just or unjust
>
> > Cheers
>

> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Towle <andytol...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Well, some people do things even when they no its not morally right, such
> >> as killing someone. Although, maybe it's their belief in the first place
> >> that it's alright to kill someone.
>

> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Paul Gully <nano3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> maybe not from where we stand, but they wouldn't do whatever it is if
> >>> they did not think it justified then. the long term morality is dependent on
> >>> their upbringing. morality is entirely dependent on perspective, and you
> >>> gain nothing by examining something else by your moral standards, especially
> >>> if its in another cultural framework all together.
>
> >>> morality doesn't exist outside of the mind and even then it varies, you
> >>> cant measure it like you can the flow of a river.
>
> >>> im not arguing for the 'morality' of any actions, but the futility of
> >>> assessing the morality of something done in another framework. you ARE
> >>> working 'outside' by making these statements and observations, but not
> >>> shedding the tools of 'inside'
>

> >>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM, David Reich <ellimi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> Well, I suppose that yes, it is impossible to have morals at an
> >>>> absolutist perspective, but if you're going to be holding one then I'm
> >>>> afraid I don't fully understand your belief in 'progress' or change as
> >>>> inherently positive.  I understand that you recognise that as a
> >>>> contradiction, but you still failed to explain it.  To reiterate my earlier
> >>>> example - everyone in Oceania dying.  Surely that wouldn't be Good?  (BTW: I
> >>>> propose that we capitalise Good when referring to moral good).  Or everyone
> >>>> in Brave New World being made to live in 1984 instead - which is surely a
> >>>> less enjoyable, but just as stable, dystopia?  Those are 'progress' in the
> >>>> sense of moving to a point.  Are they automatically moral?
>
> >> --

> >> Andy T.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Yes, most of us understand, but do you understand the phrase "ignorance is bliss"? You remember why the Giver was a sad old man, right? He had the knowledge of generations spanning since the long beginning of their society. Yet, he held that knowledge with the burden of memories. One's worse memories are their most powerful weapon and their greatest fear. Without such emotions and still someone with guidance, they live a Pollyanna lifestyle. Morals mean nothing when everyone is happy and are okay with it. Besides, when the child cuts in line, their society should rectify that the same way they rectified, "I want a smack!"

Cheers with Beer

[David Reich]

You both make very good points.  The thing is, Andrew, do humans really have a right to those emotions?  If I remember correctly, a major aspect of The Giver was the negative emotions felt as well as the positive ones.  For one, are you sure such emotions are irreplaceable moral things to have?  Are they truly essential?  Isn't happiness the end goal?  Of course, I suppose you could argue that happiness requires the knowledge (if not experience) of sadness.  Hmm.  

How about Fahrenheit 451?  Look up the summary on wikipedia or something.  The average person stares at their TV with all their time, not experiencing anything deeply - but they still know that deep emotions exist.  They still just watch TV.  Is this a utopia for them?  It seems as though you would think it is - while I would take the opposite view, that The Giver is a utopia, but it's not.  Here's why I would think this - In the Giver, I'm truly happy, I don't know any alternative.  I would hope to know one, but would be content without one.  It would be a fulfilling life - contributing to the community, but with personal time as well, even some thought - I kinda forget the specifics of how the Elders rule, but I don't think they'd mind a bit of idle philosophy, so long as it was disconnected from reality.  So epistemology, which is still interesting, would be in the picture.  

On the other hand, I could live in Fahrenheit 451, but would hate myself the whole time because I'd feel like I wasn't fufilling my capabilities as a human - to explore, experience, like the people on TV.

Thuy seems to agree with me, but for different reasons.  However, I wrote this thing up and then got his mail, so I've not taken it into account here.

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Andrew Toll <andyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Andrew Towle]

I do understand what youre saying, for the most part; But I didnt ge tthe part about the i want a smack thing.

--
Andy T.

[Andrew Towle]

1. You say happiness is the goal. You may be right, but the way I see it, which comes from my belief in the Bible, is that there is always a void in our life and we are just trying to fill that void. It is solely for our fulfillment, so yes, you coould say happiness is the end goal.

2. I have read the giver and 1 or 2 other bokk sin that book list that wass first said. I have just started reading Fahrenheit 451, and I read slowly, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Happiness is truly the end goal. It's in human nature. In everything we do, in all of human history, it's because of the pursuit of happiness. In a Buddhist's point of view, it's to avoid suffering or to lessen suffering. Also, as a Buddhist we try to end suffering and we lessen so by making things simpler and lose desire. My religion rant is now over.

Now for the smack thing, the friend said, "I want a smack" rather than "I want a snack" which was rectified with a ruler. The same solution can be applied to the slide-line cutting problem and justice is still served.

Cheers

[dew96 (saucy)]

Well in Christianity it's basically (and by basically I really mean basically) also about reaching happiness. In the sense that we will reach a place where only happiness exists.

[David Reich]

Yay, religion, that's universally applicable.  actually, it might be - you two are agreeing, and certainly having an easier time coming up with something absolute than us heathens. So, just to be sure about this, Thuy, you think the Giver's good?  What about them, you know, killing people to get rid of extreme troublemakers?

david, andrew - you've said christianity is looking for Good, do you think any of utopias I've mentioned fulfill that?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Maybe religion has a unanimous destination but has different names for it such as nirvana, heaven, ect. Although, there is heaven in uddhism but there is the higher ground of nirvana. Then there is hell where there are different kinds such as where you starve for the rest of your life or suffer in pain, ect.

Now to the Giver, killing the extremists keeps control and maintains their utopia. They believe that this scares others from doing the same action. Now for the Giver utopia, I personally don't oppose it nor do I like it. It has both good points and bad points that equal each other out. Now if I was raised in their society, I would like it. If I was raised Christian, I would hate it. Since I'm raised Buddhist, I neither hate it nor love it. Nuff said.

For the Giver, himself, he's wise. I like him how he has the knowledge and wisdom of everything but I feel much pity of how he must bear the burdens of millions.

Cheers

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Quoc-Thuy Vuong <vqt...@lv5.org> wrote:

Maybe religion has a unanimous destination but has different names for it such as nirvana, heaven, ect. Although, there is heaven in Buddhism but there is the higher ground of nirvana. Then there is hell where there are different kinds such as where you starve for the rest of your life or suffer in pain, ect.

Now to the Giver, killing the extremists keeps control and maintains their utopia. They believe that this scares others from doing the same action. Now for the Giver utopia, I personally don't oppose it nor do I like it. It has both good points and bad points that equal each other out. Now if I was raised in their society, I would like it. If I was raised Christian, I would hate it. Since I'm raised Buddhist, I neither hate it nor love it. Nuff said.

For the Giver, himself, he's wise. I like him how he has the knowledge and wisdom of everything but I feel much pity of how he must bear the burdens of millions.

Cheers

(there were some spelling errors.)

[dew96 (saucy)]

But what about when they killed babies only because they would be twins? What do you think about that, when I child has done nothing wrong but split in an egg and weigh less then the other twin?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

It was to avoid confusion. Personally, I hate it but there were some reasons behind it. They wanted to decrease confusion.

Having a one track mind would hinder you in these debates. Then again, it may not. May it be your double-edged sword. Learn to use it.

Cheers

[dew96 (saucy)]

I would agree with you. And I'm not trying to be biased at all. In fact, let me support what you have said before I philosophically break it apart without the use of Christian values.

So, I agree that it stopped confusion. And how wonderful was that. Just think. No confusion. Everyone is uniqiue. You don't have to worry about explaining to a child that they are individual, or worry about a child feeling like they are just a carbon copy of their sibling because they are 100% different. Not only that, but your sibling wouldn't live with you anyway, but still woundn't that be inconviniet that someone in your community was exactly like you? That would be too confusing. So the only fair was I can think of so solve this is too give a lethal injection to the lighter of the two babies and send he/she down a garbage disposal. Perfect. Especially in a world with no emotion. The utopia didn't have emotion. I don't know if anyone else got this, but that pill, it didn;t just stop the "stirrings" as sexual feelings, the "stirrings" were accually supressing everything. I mean, people may have said "I feel sad" or "I am excited today" but their emotions were empty. In the words of the Giver "without the memories it all seems pointless." Accually I'm just paraphrasing, which I know is an aweful way to support an argument but whatever.  Anyway, let me get back to you about breaking your argument apart now that ive supported it...

[dew96 (saucy)]

Aw man I made a bunch of spelling errors I hope that makes me look stupid.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Your errors only reflect upon their judgments rather than your own judgment. It's up to them whether you look stupid or not. Sorry to disappoint but you don't look stupid, rather just in a hurry to argue with me.

Also, your rant is exactly my point. We only view things depending on our background. They were raised that way. We are raised differently. We think they are inhumane. They think we are disorderly. It's all perspective. Being raised in this society, I agree to which this is a dystopia by controlling others. Still, that's only me.

Cheers

[dew96 (saucy)]

Huh, good point. In the words of the barbarians, I believe you just "pwned" me

[Andrew Towle]

1. I see what Thuy is saying. We do view things according to our background, and to me, controlling others is against my view, as was said by Thuy.

2. I just realized something. In The Giver, the Giver himself somewhat represents Jesus. He bares the burden of millions, as you also said earlier Thuy, and Jesus bared
 the burden of billions upon the Cross.

--
Andy T.

[David Reich]

yes, everyone represents Jesus.  (that's a joke with me, about half the essays I've written this year compare a character to Jesus, because it's so easy).  

Hmm, everyone seems to be agreeing that there's no such thing as any absolute morality - even the religous.  This is interesting.  Paul, though - you still need to reply to my question about why progress is inherently good.  

Also, about the spelling - we appreciate good spelling here, particularly in longer more formal messages, but if you're already talking about this sorta stuff it won't exactly make you looks 'stupid'.  Unless you're talking to David Horton.

[Paul Gully]

Ok, all 'inherently good things' are subject to point of view, and it is my personal opinion that progress, or at least the ability to progress, is just about the most important thing on a species-wide level. i couldn't back that up, and while i am tempted to try, i will refrain until i have a better place to do it in. (ultimately, my disdain for organized religion stems from this- happiness is a wonderful goal, but it ends, and has no way to become something new. religion, like these utopias, aims to placate those it 'rules over', not empower them. (and thuy, i know that some religions, (ie. buddism specifically) are not quite that way, but bear with me) )

now, with that in mind, you can understand why I /personally/ dislike these utopias- they are stable, but cannot go anywhere anymore. however, i understand that for the average person, these utopias are actually good- optimal, even. they fulfill the common mans goal for him, or at least lend a huge help to the completion of said goal, and are generally more peaceful, etc. 

anyway, i feel that may not have been an adequate response. but time will tell.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

First of all, let me just say that I compose my ideas better when I am speaking than when I am typing them out.

With that said, I will argue against whatever I feel like.

In The Giver, (sorry for using it so much but it's the only one I've read) they don't know that it is a bad thing to kill the unborn babies, maybe it isn't. I mean, what is so bad about killing a multicellular organism that doesn't have a very acute sense of, well, anything. If no one knows or cares about it, how can it be so bad? However, we can't actually know what that is like because we haven't been put into the situation ourselves. To quote Paul from earlier today, "Observation is from the outside...." Maybe if we had someone here who lives in a "Utopic" society, they could tell us what it is like. Alas, we don't.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

P.S. Could we not use religion in our arguments? I don't know much about other religions.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, religion shouldn't be here in the first place so there really isn't anything to worry about. Although, a religion discussion is starting to sound better.

Now for the Giver, it's a viable source since it's truly a Utopian society book. I also agree with Paul's phrase, "Observation is from the outside..." which reminds me. David R., do you still have that quote book? How is it progressing?

Now for the Giver itself, what if someone did care about it? In this utopia, would that person be silenced? If they did, they would be breaking the borders of humanity and gives them incentive to slaughter everyone, right? If they represented some threat to utopia, they can kill it, right? Although by killing others, the killer can mean some threat to the peace and must be silenced. So utopia, too, can become paradoxes.

Cherry Ice Cream

[Michael Oppenheimer]

The killers are the government though, and the government controls everything. So there wouldn't be any need to kill the killer(s). No one would care about it in the Giver because that is the way society works. They are given drugs and raised to have little real emotions

[Michael Oppenheimer]

.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

The killers are the government though, and the government controls everything. So there wouldn't be any need to kill the killer(s). No one would care about it in the Giver because that is the way society works. They are given drugs and raised to have little real emotions.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

But sadly, the government isn't controlled by one person and so one person could become corrupted and he/she would have lots of power. Although, if there was only one person, there would be no stop to that person. If the entire government was corrupted even...would that be okay? I guess no one would really oppose that since they are controlled and restrained.

Cheers?

[Andrew Towle]

1. So Michael, in your eyes it's okay to kill babies? Really? You honestly think that?

2. Thuy, our government is already corrupted, and it's not a one-person gov., so yeah...Our president is controlled and restrained, atleast for now, but things can happen...

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

Andrew- did you read the entire comment? its about context. YOU (and most people you will ever meet) DO oppose infanticide, however it is just because of context. our history has created morals that oppose infanticide, but there is no absolute logic against it (as michael discussed). In 'The Giver' s society there is not that historical moral opposition, so it is ok. that is what we all mean when we talk about moral relativity. 

i only object to that statement you made because it sounds like an ad-hominim.

[Andrew Towle]

1. that was for Michael to respond to, not you, but thanks anyways.

2. I can indeed think of absolute logic against infanticide, but if I treid to explain it, of course you would probably think of some other supposed flaw in my thinking and start ranting about that.

3. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm mad. I have to be blunt though.

 

Cheerios

--
Andy T.

[Paul Gully]

yeah- of course i would find a flaw- thats what im doing. im playing an arbiter here. most of the holes i would poke would probably be insignificant to anyone other than an arbiter anyway.

I didn't answer your question, anyway- I was, as i said, arbitrating. 

and dont not say something because you think it may be flawed- thats the whole point here. even though these discussions may seem 'heated' or whatever at times, the idea is to have open discussion without any sort of status quo. say what you have to say. im interested to hear a purely logical argument against infanticide in a flourishing population. 

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Exactly, there is no hatred towards one another in these discussions, only our views on each other change since we start showing more and more extensive viewpoints and arguments. We should hate each other for typing letters but rather think about what they type as another idea. Now for killing babies, you only oppose it since you live by that logic. I probably live by it, too but logic means nothing according to the laws of nature where "Survival of the Fittest" is stretched to its limits. Dinosaurs, for example, had mixed feelings about killing baby tyrannosaurus rex but they know that if they don't kill it today, it will kill the dinosaur later. Now to think about "The Little Prince", you can only clean the world's toilet if you've cleaned your own. I think you guys can figure that out.

Which reminds me, they may be loosely related but some stories about such as "Gulliver's Travel" and "The Little Prince" may work as some sources...maybe.

Cheers, not cheerio, cheerios, or giraffe

[dew96 (saucy)]

Okay, I think I see what Thuy and some other people are getting at. Basically, it's not about if we think the killing of the babies is wrong or not, because really it's all opinion and perspective; we didn't grow up in the utopic (dystopic) world. So even though it matters what we think, its all perspective and we cannot back up our arguments with personal beliefs. 

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

...exactly? Yeah, exactly, give or take a kit-kat bar.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Well hte reason I believe infanticide is "morally wrong" is because the children who are getting killed are also other living humans. Earlier, I remember someone else here saying something about the babies not having any clue about their surroundings, or something about not having an understanding of life or something of the sort. Well, true, they don't, but that's something they develop as they learn from adults and siblings. Just because they're babies doesn't mean they aren't human. God gave us dominion over the animals of the earth, not the other humans; And no, I'm not saying government is bad.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Exactly, big or small, beautiful or ugly, old or young, we are all human. That baby that is killed could make life all better for us in the future but we don't know that. So killing a baby is ever-changing the future, maybe for the worse.

And I'd like to point out that you brought up GOD! Hm...aren't animals in the same position as us? If killing is forbidden, then isn't killing animals the same? Well, that's for another debate.

And the government may be bad. They hold secrets that we don't know, some we don't know that we don't know. We don't know! Governments must hold secrets, still.

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

So, should I know longer bring up the subject of God? Don't you have a god of some form? Or do you worship Siddhartha Gautama himself?

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Nah, you can bring up god. Just that religion isn't something everybody agrees with and I hope you're prepared for that. Now Buddhists worship all of the Buddhas that attained enlightenment. We, as Buddhists, wish to find enlightenment and look to Siddhartha Gautama and the other Buddhas for the way to find it. So, in a way, we do worship Siddhartha!

Cheers

[Andrew Towle]

Ok, yeah sorry, I just have strong beliefs, but if you wanted, I would like to discuss religion with you. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't want to hear anyone else's opinion.



--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Well, we can start a new discussion about religion! Still, we are on the Utopian subject here and our talk of religion is starting to spread.

If you want to start this discussion, use the link below. I feel indifferent so you create one if you want but I won't create it. I will discuss if there is. Just be careful of all the atheists. For once, Christians are the minority.

http://groups.google.com/group/the-sspc

Cheers to SSPC

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Andrew, that is not a logical argument. It is still about morals. Not to sound condescending, but I don't really want to hear why you think killing infants is morally wrong, I want to hear why you think it is the wrong thing to do in regards to society.

I will now argue against myself. The reason that it would be bad is because (agreeing with Thuy) the person that you kill could grow up to be the smartest, best leader that you could ever hope for. You would never know that because they would be, you know, dead.

P.S. Andrew, don't be so -y.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Now we can kill babies once we get that time machine running. We'll know what they will do when they grow up. We can go back to that topic with the idea of killing babies!

MWAHAHAHAHAcheersHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Paul Gully]

argument from speculation. If you were to not do anything that could possibly have negative unforeseen consequences, you would probably never do anything, ever. 

i could flip that could flip that idea around, too. how do you know that the kid wont grow up to start a nuclear holocaust? It doesn't work.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thuy, you rock.

Also, what if that kid was actually you but you didn't know it, would you die?
And I don't want to hear: "Michael, that's a paradox." I want to know if there can be a solution to this issue: which would win?

[Paul Gully]

hey. thats meta!

(note that we already have a topic for time-travel, etc)

you would continue to exist and the baby would die- 'alternate branch' is the only way to work it out without breaking a few universes along the way.

[Andrew Towle]

Michael, if I said anything that you were offended by or something, sorry, i guess...I really don't need you to tell what I am and what I am not. Forgive me.

 

Yes, in regards to you wanting me to respond about what the effect on society would be of killing the baby. I agree with Paul that not only could the baby grow up to be a future leader, but could grow up and so some bad damage too. that's just what I wanted to say.


--
Andy T.

[Michael Oppenheimer]

Ah, I see Paul, good point.

[Andrew Towle]

link me to the SSPC group page, someone

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Michael Oppenheimer <doomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ah, I see Paul, good point.

--
Andy T.

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

I already did (look above)