Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pgslaflame t1_j0vegb8 wrote

Reply to comment by Saadiqfhs in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Depends on how you define utopia. Utopia is a ideal, something perfect. Something that can’t be reached because humans aren’t perfect.

So I’d say no. Humanity and perfection are contradictory. There’ll be always some kind of struggle.

2

Saadiqfhs t1_j0veu43 wrote

We can reach it but we will rebel against it I think. As the only way to enjoy paradise is with out thought, the thing that makes us human

1

pgslaflame t1_j0vgp54 wrote

But humanity without thought isn’t able to survive, is it?

How do you define a utopia though.

1

Saadiqfhs t1_j0vgukm wrote

A world where all our needs are met

1

pgslaflame t1_j0vhpc0 wrote

What kind of needs?

Like everyone has food, water, a roof above one’s head and receives the needed love?

1

Saadiqfhs t1_j0vis3u wrote

All really, to point where even the need the walk will be inferior way of life

1

pgslaflame t1_j0vkrpv wrote

I don’t think that’ll be possible while having organic bodies. Also a future in which my way of life is viewed as inferior, just bc I like walking and use my body doesn’t sound too utopian 😅.

Do you maybe mean a “every wish is granted” type of future?

1

Saadiqfhs t1_j0wdeul wrote

I think that what I see as the closes thing we will be in Utopia

1

pgslaflame t1_j0wnldu wrote

So maybe just like in matrix, only less misanthropic, with a simulation that does whatever one of the player wishes, wo each of those being able to harm each other? Or does it need to be “real”?

1

Oh-hey21 t1_j1ekxuu wrote

I'm not sure where to interject, picking here..

I think it's impossible to have a universally agreed set of standards and needs. We're already proving that individual communities struggle to establish guidelines that are not questioned.

In order to achieve a utopia I believe we'd need to become far too similar, more than anyone else would like.

No matter what, a baseline needs to be established. Everything would have to be agreed on, and that would require an entire planet's worth of agreement. Utopia is easier to exist in a small group, and even then, you're going to have far too many differing opinions.

Is a utopia even desirable?

1

bumharmony t1_j0w8rvl wrote

So you are saying people cannot follow any set of rules ever because ”human nature”? But that is what makes humanity: the ability to think.

What if we make a system that is maximally rational (because another thing about human nature, ”shelfishness”) that any departure from its rules is actually altruistic (anything short of violence against bodies) or self-harm?

In trivial terms: for example a scenario where you cannot steal other people’s parcels that are equally distributed and one can only depart from its rules by a) not taking own share and causing self-harm or b) gifting it to others making it an altruistic deed. They are actually the same thing: altruism does not exist among sane people.

1

pgslaflame t1_j0wgg85 wrote

Humans aren’t purely rational unfortunately. Thats why rational rules and the punishment for breaking them often do not work. Selfishness can take up self destructive dimensions. If people would be rationally selfish, for the most part selfish altruism would be the logical answer.

How is your scenario different from laws we have rn? (Except the punishment)

1

bumharmony t1_j0yapzl wrote

We don’t have a system that is maximally rational (maximum efficiency and justice) so that departure from it could be evidenced as pareto suboptimal. Obviously breaking the rules of the status quo further increases your position in so many cases. It is just an arbitrary way of living at best,

1

pgslaflame t1_j0yiznw wrote

Yea that sounds a bit hedonistic and not very utopian to me idk. I think the right approach would be to “create” people that don’t want to act unethically in the first place. Rules wouldn’t even be necessary then.

1

bumharmony t1_j0yppkw wrote

Just trying to tinker with the argument from the incoherence/shelfishness of human nature. Not guaranteeing it will fit a whole. Sadly.

And of course it is hedonistic, well, atleast materialistic because that is the question about. After the system is maximally rational, so that no one's position can be improved you can do b) give away your share if your religion tells you to. It does interfere with what is rational for the individual in particular.

1