I
think Book I is an important view that needs to be seen/heard before the book
moves on to this perfect world. Even if it seems a bit odd that the author is a
character in a fictional yet not actually so fictional version of their society. Then
he can move on to telling the reader about the entirely fictional world of Utopia. If
More had started off by just saying that this is a wonderful place and we
should all aspire to be there; that would be it. It would just end there. It
wouldn’t show the readers what’s wrong with their world, or how to achieve this
perfect world. Which as I take it is kind of the point; to show the people what
their world should be more like. Nothing can change if no one knows there is
anything wrong with the world and if they know things are wrong they still
won’t know how to fix things. If anything things will just get worse. As my
high school English teacher made it abundantly clear “Ignorance is not bliss”.
I think More had a similar idea, he thought it was necessary to show the people
what was wrong with their world (even though it was just the smart people) so
that they too could see the view he was coming from. On the contrary to his beliefs,while he has the right idea of having a perfect world, because honestly if you
could live in a perfect world why would you not? But I still disagree with his
version of the “perfect world”. One major flaw of his idea is that, the world
can’t be perfect because everyone has a different idea of what perfect is. I’m
only one person, but because I think his idea of a perfect world is wrong the
whole concept is gone; it’s no longer perfect because I don’t think it is. I do agree I don’t want people stealing the things I worked hard for, and I don’t
think they should be killed if they do steal them. I think he takes it to a bit of an extreme. I don’t think life, as a slave is an equal punishment for the crime
committed. This sounds a bit dark, but I know that no one really wants to
die, yet the murders (while they lose their lives) never have to face any
other punishment. Then if you steal a loaf of bread you’re a slave for the rest
of your life (and at that point death doesn’t seem so bad) I know it’s really
dark I just see it as unequal punishment. Also let me clarify I don’t think
thieves should be killed, but I also don’t think they deserve to be slaves
forever. If anyone deserves that it’s the murders. Maybe a year or two in
prison (maybe in their day some physical labor), but anything after that seems
excessive. So while I agree that death is harsh for thieves, I also think that
his idea of punishment also seems rather harsh. I don’t have a really good, strong alternative punishment because my idea of a fair punishment could be extremely
different from someone else, but I definitely think that life as a slave sounds
horrible. Plus the whole idea is just to dehumanize them anyway. Truthfully a
thief is still a person, but they’ll dress him the same as a bunch of people
and cut his hair different and cut off part of his ear and make him get locked
in at night. Doesn’t that seem pretty bad too? No one deserves that for
stealing. So I close with this idea. Items and money can be replaced, people
cannot.
I like certain aspects of the punishment for the thieves, as told by Hythloday. I agree with you, the whole “life as a slave” thing sounds horrible, but I like the fact that while they are slaves, they have to work to better the community. I like the idea that, since they stole from the community they have to give back via hard labor. By stole from the community I mean that, if a person stole a loaf of bread, then the person who made the bread won’t take in any profit, which might disable him from purchasing other goods from the community, which could stop the money flow. Or maybe there was a person who just scraped up enough money to buy some bread and now can’t because the bread has been stolen and the person will go hungry. I think that punishment should depend on circumstances surrounding the crime. And I think that this is why an already existing place cannot turn into a Utopia. Since everybody is already raised in their ways, people would have differing views on what is right and wrong so Utopia wouldn’t be everyone’s Utopia.
ReplyDeleteHey Erin!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that if one person disagrees with what is considered perfect then the whole notion is a moot point. While I was reading Book 2, I found the idea of this island fascinating. Everyone working in harmony, striving to better their minds with knowledge and religion sounds great! However, what about the people who don't agree with the society? Are they just going to be cast out or have life enslavement? I think I read that if a person decides to take a walk without the permission of his father or his wife and without permission from the ruler of this Utopia, then they could be severely punished. Um... what? That seems a bit extreme just for taking a walk on your own free time. I think the only people who are granted a real opinion on this perfect world are the visitors and outsiders; the people who are there to observe but not live in it.
I also agree with your last statement that everyone is raised differently and has preconcieved notions about what is right and wrong. How can a large group of people come together and create this perfect world if we all have different views and ideas? We can't even get Congress to agree on anything without upsetting a bunch of people!