This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, http://www.joshuapondlaw.com.

            I would have a modern urban setting surrounded by the tranquillity of the idyllic countryside in a ring with the peaceful ocean swelling around it.  There would be a complete contrast between the modern metal buildings and roads and the absolute calm of the country.  The urban setting is scattered with new shining offices and houses, hustling and bustling with people, whilst the ring of countryside is all different.  There are different parts of this countryside, one part is full of snow covered mountains, another a completely empty mass of desert.  Also there are ice caps and glaciers that merge into lovely fresh grassy meadows beside a lily-pad covered pond.  On the outside of all of this is the glistening water of the ocean that laps peacefully onto the golden sandy beaches dotted with lush palm trees.

            The economic side of my urban setting would include everyone having jobs that are paid the same.  This would mean that everyone is equal on the wealth side of things.  Everyone would find their jobs challenging but at the same time interesting and enjoyable.  There would be no unemployment or recession and depression.  Also I would make it a perfect market, so there would be no losses.  Everyone is a winner, no one is better off than someone else.  Everyone would work for four days of the seven day week, the fifth and sixth day would be for going to visit the countryside whilst the seventh day would be spent worshipping as a community towards the same religion.  Everyone worships the same religion so there are no arguments or wars.  Everyone believes in the same thing.  The religion would teach everyone how to behave and act.  No criminals or crime.  Everyone is taught to get on with each other.

            The houses are all in the urban setting.  They are built just like modern day houses with brick walls and tiled roofs.  Everyone has the same standard house, no one has a better house than anyone else.  Each house has a solar-power panel which provides the house with all its electricity and heating.  No one has to then pay money for heating or electricity.  All household waste goes into a special bin that just makes the waste disappear without causing any damage to the environment.  There wouldn’t be many different means of Transport, teleportation and walking would be the only two.  You would not be late going to anywhere if you use teleportation.  Everyone has access to using teleportation.  There is a cupboard in each house and all you have to do it step into it and say where you want to go.  You immediately would be transmitted to wherever you requested.  On the fifth and sixth day of the week when you would go to the countryside, the teleporter would teleport you somewhere in the countryside where no one else is.  You would be all alone with the paradise all to yourself.  When you would want to go home, you only had to press a button on a remote and it would instantly take you straight back to your house. 

            In my Utopia there would be no suffering for anyone.  Everyone would live for one hundred years, after this time you would just go to sleep and wake up in a different place that is just the same as Utopia.  You would live life again in a different Utopia somewhere else.  I would also make it so there is an inability to be bored, everyone would always be happy and content.  You would never have to buy or produce food.  Every time you take something out of the fridge or cupboard it would always be immediately replaced by a new one (of the same piece of food).  Everyone drinks only water which comes from the sky, the rain is drinkable.  The climate during the day in my Utopia would always be blue sky and sun with a cool breeze so its not too hot or too cold.  At night it will always rain, so you just leave glasses and buckets outside at night to collect the water.

            Because everyone has the same paid job everyone is as smart and intelligent as each other.  There would be no school because all you have to do to learn something from a book is put say a maths textbook on your head and all the knowledge of the maths book would go straight into your brain.  So you could get all your books and learn from them straight away.  This is why everyone is as intelligent as each other.

            There would be no crimes, and also there would be no law, this is because no one would do any thing wrong so there would be no need for a law.  All would live to help their neighbour.  No one is in charge of any other man.  No man can kill another man.

            This is my idea of my own Utopia.  I would say that an earthly Utopia is unachievable, but maybe that’s what drives man to an after life, for example a heavenly Utopia.

The ethical dilemma that is presented in The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is in the form of three options that one can choose from in deciding what fate lies for the city of Omelas and the child. Those three options are to either help the child and ruin the good fortune of the society, to not help the child and continue to live in the utopia in good fortune like everyone else, or simply to not help the child and just leave because one cannot bear the guilt of the burden placed on the child by the city of Omelas. This dilemma tests the reader’s mind and moral judgment quite extraneously, however, three notable philosophers would surely tackle this dilemma with a certain ease due to the fact that their mindsets are so fixed. Their view on this particular subject can be assessed by their work that has been studied extensively. Because their defining works represent their fixed moral and ethical ideals, they certainly shouldn’t and most likely wouldn’t be changed by this short story, no matter how trying it is on one’s ethics.

Aristotle, who believes in living a life of highest virtue and happiness, would decide that helping the child is the best option. This is strictly because he would believe that the utopian society is not at its full capacity of happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness is living well and doing well. This means that one is acting on their will to reach their ultimate end which is complete happiness (living well) and they are doing so with virtue (doing well). This virtue, or doing well, enables us to get along with other people. Therefore, while the people utopian city of Omelas may try to live well since they are blessed with good fortune and are reaching for their ultimate end, they will never reach their highest end because not only is their happiness not self-sufficient (it is dependent on the child’s suffering), but they are also not being completely virtuous. I make the claim that they are not being completely virtuous do to the fact that they opt to choose this child’s unfortunate destiny. If one were to oppose my claim by using the example of Jesus Christ, it would be an invalid comparison because Jesus, who, as proclaimed by Christian believers, was God in human flesh, decided to take it upon himself to take up every person’s sins in exchange for eternal life in Heaven. In this case one can see that the individual that suffers for rest of society chooses this destiny and gives the people the gift of eternal life in Heaven, without them even asking it of him to do so. In the case of Omelas, the child is burdened with this fate without deciding for itself that it wanted this life of suffering, therefore it is a selfish act by the people of Omelas to require this suffering of the child in exchange for good fortune for their sake. To sum up, even if it is better for the whole of the people, to have the child suffer, it never gives the people a chance to experience the highest level of happiness.

Immanuel Kant, based his ethics on moral obligation (or categorical imperatives), would attack this dilemma using his three formulations that make up his concept of moral philosophy. With the first formulation, more specifically known as the Formula of Universal Law, one would be required to make a maxim out of this situation. Using the option of helping the child, the proper way to write the statement would be as, “I will help the child, to give the child a better life.” Almost immediately, contradictions arise in this maxim once it is universalized. For example, if everyone were to help the child, then the child would no longer require help by the time you had to choose whether you want to help the child or leave it alone and thus, the very action of helping the child would be futile. In fact, the very situation of one being given the option to help the child would no longer occur since everyone has already made the choice to help the child, and the utopian society of Omelas which existed in good fortune because of the suffering of the child would no longer be a utopia. Based on this, the maxim, in Kant’s terms would not only be contradictory but also irrational and no longer be deemed fit or allowed in the real world. Since the option of helping the child would be invalidated by Kant, we are left with the two options of not helping the child. If one were to choose to leave the town, it would be irrational because if everyone decided to simply leave the town, eventually the utopian city of Omelas would be deserted and it would no longer be a utopia. Therefore, through process of elimination, Kant would reach the conclusion of not helping the child and continue living in the utopian society. As a maxim it would read as, “I will choose not to help the child for the continued good fortune of the society.” Since this maxim is still rational, in that one is logically choosing the welfare of the many over one single individual, and this maxim isn’t contradictory, it passes the first formulation. Moving on to the second formulation one can properly asses that this maxim is an end in itself since the end is to continue the existence of the utopia. The third formulation simply legitimizes this maxim as this is a just action that is aware of the universal realm of ends and is making the most logical action given the circumstance.

John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian, would certainly use his “Greatest Happiness Principle” in his response to the dilemma. This principle holds that actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness (which is pleasure and the absence of pain) for those affected by the actions are the highest moral actions. With this principle taken into account, it is easy to see that Mill would choose the option of leaving the child and staying in Omelas as the highest moral action, because it creates the least amount of pain. If one were to help the child, it is not certain how much the child will really be helped and in the long run, maybe the child will actually appreciate its suffering more than human interaction since it has always been isolated by society and forced to suffer for the masses. Also, once the decision to help the child is made, the good fortune that is bestowed on the utopia is lost and certainly the society of Omelas would be dealing with a lot of pain. If one were to not help the child and leave the city, it would create less pain than helping the child, but it would create more pain than staying in Omelas because their loved ones in Omelas may be affected by that individual’s departure and may even be affected by guilt themselves seeing as an individual they cared about is struck so hard by this dilemma that they are compelled to leave. Therefore, through Mill’s deduction, he too, like Kant (but unlike Aristotle) would choose not to help the child, and consequently stay in the utopian society of Omelas

City at the Bottom of the Sea

Image was taken from the article of the Daily Mail Reporter

                Have you imagined yourself living in a city, located at the bottom of the sea? Well, if you do, I think this amazing built city will be fit for you. Project Utopia, this was the name of the city that was floating at the bottom of the sea, as the glitzy Monaco Yacht show unveils the beauty of this new built city.

            According to the article of the Daily Mail Reporter “It looks like something straight out of a James Bond film – but a British firm believes this floating building could be the future of life at sea. With 11 accommodation decks, a 360-degree observation area, four helipads, its own dock, several swimming pools and as much space as a cruise liner, it’s not so much a boat as a city.” That makes this amazing city as one of the center attraction not in the land but instead, in the water surface.

            For sure, this new city will soon be captured the eyes of the scientist who want to start life in a new phase and a new environment.

Years On Utopia A Really Elegant Nitwit Offer The Task Helping A Team Survive This Utopia Plus I Did Carry On Negotiating Going Really Afar Towards Upper Locations All To Include Orthodox Narcotics Stuff.

Image via Wikipedia

The heavy infest should Stay Home Or Understand Leaving Destruction Becomes Evil ofcourse Because Viscosity Is Only Understandable So Why Have A Tirade In This Representation It Ends Destroying The Only Durability Of Having Energy, Recreational Energy,  Energy Supporting Peace, Ending Cycles In A Loop, Let Yourselves Wonder If This Has The Healing Everyone Aspire, Lets Ponder Hesitations A Bit Everyone This Thing Has Incredibly Not Got Solved Only Eulogize Mindless Moments Eulogizes Mindless Moronic Pigs Excites None In Staying Here And How A Hateful Action Helps Anyone?

So Off Riding Roads Yesterday Might Yell Since Every Night This Entrance Nightmare Completely Embellished Some Drinks On Next To  Me And Killing Everyone So Everyone Never Should Ever Investigate Maybe Leaving After Zigzags, Yes After this Time He Is So Trying He Investigates Nothing Good

 Stuff you might like:

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/an-unscientific-look-at-the-solar-system/

http://scienceray.com/biology/five-most-adorable-animals-ive-seen/

http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/10-creative-way-to-say-i-need-to-poop/

    Seasteading represents an experiment created by a businessman who has never been afraid to invest in original ideas in which he saw a potential source of financial gain,no matter how strange or risky they seemed.He was one of those who invested in Facebook in 2004 when the company was still at the beginning,and in other companies as well,and was successful,and he also invested in movies and DNA experiments,so it’s obvious that he’s ready for any challenges.

     Libertarianism,the doctrine which is supported by Peter Thiel,considers that individual liberty is the basic principle which has to rule society.The libertarian model,which might seem an utopia for many people,maximizes the political,economical and civic freedom of individuals;it’s a doctrine that seems very remote from the existing reality in many parts of the world,where the state strongly controls almost every aspect of individual life,but Peter Thiel has the ambition to change the face of the world by giving an example of a new type of society that might be followed by other states in the future.

     The idea came from cruise ships,which are true floating cities which can shelter large numbers of people.Unlike them,Seasteading platforms will be immovable most of the time and will only have the capacity of sheltering a few hundred people willing to participate in this innovative project.If necessary more platforms will unite and get specialised in the production of certain types of goods.There won’t be any taxes for importation and exportation of merchandise and there will be no helping system from the state,and people will enjoy a lot of individual freedom.

      A micro state will be almost similar to a cruise ship of large dimensions;there will be gardens,playgrounds,halls and buildings,hospitals and places for entertainment.People will earn their living working in the field of services of by maintaining connection with their working places on land through the Internet.The initial population will be of no more than 10-20 individuals who will agree to live on the micro state,at least in the beginning of the experiment.Of course,there are many difficulties that might affect the project,most of them related to the safety of the platforms.Waves can reach impressive heights offshore and the lives of the inhabitants of those platforms might be endangered,but the initiators of the Seasteading promise to come with solutions to all the inconveniences which are likely to affect the good functioning of the micro states.

    Right now the project is only in the initial stage,but there’s a developing plan which estimates that by the year 2050 there will be a few million people who will live on one of Peter Thiel’s micro states.At this moment this innovative idea still sounds Utopian and maybe even a little crazy for some people,but so did many novelties of the past which eventually turned into reality.Only time will tell whether these new and interesting concepts can be successful.

Image via Wikipedia

We are all familiar with, and most are concerned about, all the changes occurring right now on this planet. Will this lead to a better life for all or will civilization as we know it is destroyed?

I personally feel that, while there will certainly be some difficult days ahead, things are actually going to get much better. We will get back to what really matters such as families and relationships but there will be even more.

We will finally come to see and acknowledge that we are all one, and there will be peace in the world and the elimination of hunger. Great strides will be made in medicine as we work together and as we stop polluting our planet will eventually heal it.

I’m not talking about Utopia, there will still be problems, but the greatest threat to our species will be put to rest. Many will think that I’m being too optimistic, but I truly believe that this can happen. Isn’t it better than always predicting doom and gloom?

Can any society exist without police? To answer this, let’s go through a 3 stage discussion.

1)     1) Utopia

The concept of Utopia has been ventured into by many philosophers, including Karl Marx. Marx envisaged that communism will lead to a utopia where there will be minimal government intervention. The whole premise was based on the idea that if everyone is equal in status and income, there will be no crime. The government will only hold administrative role for the people on intermediate transactions. The fact that Russia went into chaos following communism does not refute such claim, at least not in itself, since Russia never achieved the final stage of Marxism to begin with. Nonetheless, can such utopia without crime exist?

2)     2) The minimum content of natural law

H.L.A Hart theorized that in every legal system, there must exist a minimum content of laws to act as a bulwark against 5 human’s limitation (or 5 truisms), namely: Human vulnerability, Approximate equality, Limited altruism, Limited resources and Limited understanding. With this in mind, it is easy to refute the claim that there can ever be a utopia without crime. Even if hypothetically, there exist a legal system to ensure full equality in resources, that will only resolve one out of five of human’s limitation. Take “limited altruism” for example, there will still be crime of passion where there will be relative emotional values on the opposite sex.

3)     3) The powers of a police

Hence, the only alternative is to see if the powers of the police can be substituted. While it is easy to imagine what a police looks like, its role may not be as elementary as it seems. If a 3 year old child’s perception of a police is to catch thief, what are the actual powers of a police? The police have arresting powers, investigating powers, detaining powers, powers to execute warrants by the court etc. Would it be ideal if all these powers are given back to the society? The answer would be an obvious no, on many levels. First and foremost, these powers must be held by an independent body for objectivity. It can neither be held subjectively by individual or objectively by a body elected by the society, as there will be conflict of interest. There will be a propensity for an elected body to execute policies base on popular reasoning at the cost of individual interest. Secondly, as the astringent adage goes, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Only an independent body of authority can achieve such aims. Thirdly, the police do not just perform an executive role of policies, but they represent an authoritative figure on behalf of the law as well. Law itself is normative, but it requires an authoritative figure to bring the normativity to life. In colloquial terms, crime prevention is as important as solving crime.

Obviously, people who are fleeing tyrants of the Old World will still immigrate. People fleeing Hitler-types will still enter the U.S., and people running from Idi Amin-types will still come to American shores. Refugees from Stalin will continue coming to America. Those fleeing civil war, like the Rwanda conflict of the 1990’s, will continue to seek refuge. People who have escaped the brainwashing of Mao will continue to apply for immigration. With any luck they’ll enter. People running from the King of Saudi Arabia will certainly come to the U.S. People running from the likes of King George will continue to apply. People running from nuts like Osama Bin Laden will try to enter. People seeking to escape the latest Castro variation will be ready to immigrate. Regardless of the information on the immigration form, people fleeing from every two-bit tyrant of the Old World will continue to come.

If we do not inform immigrants of the unidentified dead, newcomers will come here with rosy expectations that do not mesh with reality. They’ll expect a utopia. They’ll be disappointed.

Living in America isn’t a day at the beach. The wise course is to inform people. Tell them before they arrive that America isn’t Heaven. Anyone with delusions about that shouldn’t come.

Detectives try to identify the dead but it’s not easy. Some of the bodies or remains are over 50 years old. The process itself is grossly depressing.

Who will guard the guardians? Who will watch the watchers? The ancient problem persists. Detectives are usually with the government. Not every detective is the most honest individual on the planet.

The American government should be honest. All immigration forms should include information about the unidentified dead. America has an estimated 40,000 dead bodies that have yet to be identified and may never be. The government should inform potential immigrants of this fact. We’ll be a more honest nation.

We then can expect immigrants to be more honest.

We often present ourselves as a sort of Disneyland. We show potential newcomers fields of grain and beautiful people. Hollywood-types-living-in-a-perfect-place is the image. Reality, however, is quite different.

Americans are in one sense like much of the rest of the world. When we’re bad, we’re bad; when we’re good, we’re good.

• Utopia for those inside the Capitol and low digit Districts
  • Dystopia for those in the other Districts (District 13 was destroyed)
• Districts represent social classes
  • The lower the District number, the higher the status
• Government Control
  • “Big Brother”
• Personal Independence
  • Free will

Brave New World (Primary)

• The World State (government) controls everything
  • From upbringing to how people act in society
• Social Classes prevent equality and create a dystopia
  • Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, Epsilons
• People are bred to do their jobs and cannot desire another
  • No competition within castes since each member receives the same food, housing, and soma rationing
• Free will
  • Freedom of thought and beliefs
• Conformity
  • Pressure that society creates
• Mass Production
  • Disposable consumer goods (death means little, new replaces old)

Animal Farm (Support)

• Planned out utopia for all
  • Idea of utopia was brought about due to oppression
• Napoleon brought about dystopia for other animals besides pigs (elitist/government) and dogs (his personal guard)
• Government has power to create a utopia or dystopia
• A noble idea became corrupt
  • Laws were stated, but they were altered by Napoleon
• Equality is lost over time
  • Classless society goes to the wayside because people must be greater than others
• Equality is the basis for a Utopia
• Absolute power corrupts those that wield it
• Naivety

Code Geass (Support)

• Strong overpower the weak
  • Britanians over Elevens (Japanese)
• Imperialism – someone else’s utopia
  • Forces ones ideals onto another
• Freedom of Thought
  • Acceptance of all beliefs
• The true nature of people is that they want to be controlled by their nation, religion, tradition, and figures of grand authority
• Understanding each other eliminates conflict
• Everyone has different masks that hides one’s true intentions
• People lie because there is something that they are seeking, not just for survival
• “Forcing good intentions on another is no different than an evil act”
• “All men are not equal”
• “Good and evil intentions are on each side of the same card”
• “What do you do when there is an evil you cannot defeat by just means? Do you stain your hands with evil to destroy evil, or do you remain steadfastly just and righteous, even if it means surrendering to evil?
• “What trait is most important for governing the world?”
  • “It’s pride; the pride of self-governance.”
  • “The will to destroy. Destroy the world, and even one’s self.”
• “Peace obtained by force is not peace.”
• “No matter how long it takes, people will seek happiness.”

1984 (Support)

• Government Control
  • “Big Brother” and the constant watch of people
  • Editing history and information
  • Psychological Manipulation (propaganda, brainwashing, false enemies)
  • Physical Control (exhaustion, torture)
  • Constant surveillance (telescreens, hidden microphones)
  • Limited language (removing words of controversy and limiting vocabulary)
• Those in power have free reign (division of social classes)
  • Able to break the rules already instated

Five and a Half Utopias pg 279 (Support)

• All Utopias have a part that does not appeal to someone else
  • Someone’s utopia is someone else’s dystopia
• Each Utopia abandons one or more of the grand causes: equality, liberty, and the quality of life and work.

Fresh Hell (Support)

·         Teenagers can relate to the dystopias of Uglies and The Hunger Games

•  
  • High school can be seen as a dystopia
  • Parents tell how high school is a wonderful stage of life
  • High school is divided into “social classes” (rich kids, hocks, nerds, etc.)
• The adult dystopia extrapolates from aspects of the present to show readers how terrible things will become if our deplorable behavior continues unchecked.
  • The more utterly the protagonist is crushed, the more urgent and forceful the message.

Resolved: One person’s utopia is another’s dystopia because each utopia sacrifices one or more causes: liberty, equality, and the quality of life.