The creation of a utopia is impossible
Debate Rounds (4)
2. main body
3. rebuttal(no new evidence)
4. conclusion (no rebuttal or new evidence)
The only rules I really have are may the best debater win and that the Utopia is one of Man and no God involved. I am hoping to debate philosophy in this debate, not religion. I am christian and believe in the Millennium of peace that will come with the Second Coming and so I cannot debate against my own belief. I apologize for making a biased rule but I hope that you can respect my beliefs and my unwillingness to go against it.
Anyway, hope for a good debate:)
I'll admit I find your format a little wonky and I'd like a clarification about the last round: If we introduce nothing new, AND do not respond to rebuttles, what do we conclude with? Simply re-stating our original case? That seems pointless.
But otherwise, I'm on for this! Bring it!
First, I will define a utopia:
Utopia: any visionary system of political or social perfection. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
As this definition states, a Utopia is a system of perfection. This, in itself, proves itself wrong in the fact that people are not perfect. One cannot have a perfect society if the people themselves are not perfect. Now to already see the rebuttal that my come out of this, perfection is also a perspective. Let us say we have two people, one a hard working construction worker and the other a sociopath who kills for pleasure. The Utopia for the worker would be a world where work is not needed and he can live without having to do anything. The sociopath would want a world where they could kill freely and without consequence. This makes a Utopia impossible because the perfect society for one is not the same for another. The only way to create a Utopia is if everyone had the same perspective and vision in what a Utopia would be. The Utopia ideal is not possible with people of different perspective and character.
Over to you Con!
I will predicate my argument on the notion of human progress. However unlikely a true utopia may be, I would contend that it will ultimately be possible in the fullness of time. Consider the more miserable ages mankind has lived through: The Dark Ages, the era of chattel slavery, the great wars.
To a person living in any of these times, our society may well seem like a true Utopia. Consider that if your day-to-day concerns are acquisition of food, threat from predators and sickness, then modern day America has almost eliminated all of these. We need fear only the worst and rarest diseases, mostly at the end of a long life, food is arguably too abundant, and predators are in cages at zoos. We've invented NEW concerns, like having enough money, or moral decay, or obesity, it is possible we would always invent new concerns, but I'd like to believe in the fullness of time our troubles will be no more pressing then the kinds of disagreements we see on this very website.
At the ultimate extension of the human progressive argument, we get into the realm of transhumanism. In a purely speculative way, it is possible we will one day learn to electronically encode and replicate the human brain, that we will be able to live as disembodied minds in a state of decorporialized bliss, that we will no longer suffer the concerns of a mortal world, no god required.
but even taking away the possibility of that particular utopia, it is worth noting that every world we manage to make with the passage of time will be better than the one before, that any world we make will be one that is enviable if not perfect to the world that came before, and thus we may always have utopia already, we just don't realize it.
First:"I will predicate my argument on the notion of human progress. However unlikely a true utopia may be, I would contend that it will ultimately be possible in the fullness of time. Consider the more miserable ages mankind has lived through: The Dark Ages, the era of chattel slavery, the great wars."
The idea of human progress is an entertaining one and has plenty of history to back it up.The problem is, though, that human progress is always just that, progress. Getting to a perfect state is a feat that truly would be the greatest human achievement. Mankind has evolved to heights that previous ages could only have dreamed of but there is still problems in this world. Let us imagine we are like the people in the Middle Ages. The life we have today may seem perfect to them but the people of today certainly do not. If you don't believe me, watch the news. There are problems and disasters almost every day.
Second: "To a person living in any of these times, our society may well seem like a true Utopia. Consider that if your day-to-day concerns are acquisition of food, threat from predators and sickness, then modern day America has almost eliminated all of these. We need fear only the worst and rarest diseases, mostly at the end of a long life, food is arguably too abundant, and predators are in cages at zoos. We've invented NEW concerns, like having enough money, or moral decay, or obesity, it is possible we would always invent new concerns, but I'd like to believe in the fullness of time our troubles will be no more pressing then the kinds of disagreements we see on this very website."
The first thing I have to say is that in the first sentence you expressed one of the main points in my original statement. The idea of a Utopia is also an opinion about what one believes. The Utopia of Modern belief is one where no one would die, everyone got along, and there was no wrong. The idea of a Utopia then was one with no more feudal lords, no more sickness, and no need to work on a farm everyday. The whole idea of a Utopia becomes higher standards for one main reason; everyone wants what they can't or don't have.
I believe my last two statements also work for the last statements he makes and so I conclude my rebuttal.
Over to you Pro!
Either, Utopia/Perfection is Objective and we may fail to realize it (my definition,)
Utopia/Perfection is Subjective. If that's the case, then Utopia is actually much more possible. We need only persuade all people that regardless of how awful their lives may be, they are dwelling in a perfect state, then that state will be Utopia. Even easier, we need only kill all the people in the world save 1 or 2, and then, by suicide or murder-pact, have those two individuals overdose on Morphine. For the brief moment in which they have their last seconds, Utopia will be realized.
I would suggest for your sake, and the sake of this debate being less silly, we focus on what may be objective. Utopia may, however unlikely, be one day objectively possible. Perhaps not everyone will know it when we're there. Perhaps someone will always be malcontent. But unless we let that one person's perception define all of reality, it's silly to say that this person somehow undoes a Utopia. And if we DO let that one person's perception define all of reality, why are we using that person as our baseline? We've a society with 100 million happy people but one person is unhappy no matter how that society flexes to adapt to his wants or needs, and therefor we declare that society a failure as a Utopia? That's patently absurd.
To answer your opening round example of the psycho-killer versus the peace-lover: a perfect Utopia could easily grant simulated murder indistinguishable from the real thing to the psycho-killer, or, alternately, somehow change that tendency in the individual.
By the hollowest definition, a Utopia could be any culture that can simply "edit" people to the point where they are happy, rather than relying on anything concrete to deliver that happiness.
Any way you slice it, Utopia remains the same: Unlikely, but, technically, possible.
Utopias are the idea of creating a perfect society. To do this, there are several things it must have. Perfect living conditions, perfect people, and no loss of life or limb. This statement goes with one of the main statutes of economics: economics is the study of how to fulfill unlimited wants with limited resources. Everyone will always want more or to do something better and so we cannot reach a perfect state or Utopian society. We are a progressive species and we know this especially now. Humans will grow but always retain the ability to destroy themselves once again. In the ancient world, there were studies in science that had not occurred in society ever before. It was a perfect storm that allowed the era of people during the days of the Library of Alexandria to make advances that we still have not entirely learned ourselves. Greek fire is the most obvious example. We still have not gotten a complete idea about exactly how it was made. The burning of the Library was and still is the largest setback for human kind. We lost thousands of years worth of work and writings along with the more recent(at the time)discoveries. While a library burning down today and setting back all of society is unlikely, we do have the capabilities to be set back again. We have created enough nuclear bombs to make Earth uninhabitable for twice as long as it has existed. The human race is also for famous for being human. We cannot make a perfect society without perfect people and many people have tried to solve this problem including Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jung Un and his father before him. They are trying to make a Utopian society with the name of Communism behind it. If we look at North Korea we see a people in total oppression, fear, and no freedoms. I believe that a perfect society is not achievable through force or fear but must be one that is created only by freewill. People are known to be stubborn and no one wants to be told what to do. The progression of humankind cannot reach a Utopian state when humans are still humans.
Good luck and thanks for the healthy debate! I hope to do so again:)
With respect to that, virtually anything thing is possible. Therefore, Utopia, however unlikely, is possible.
My thanks to my opponent for a spirited debate.
See you in a perfect world!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have defined Utopia in the first round. Perfection is impossible, not just with humans, but with every functional thing, since there is always a place to improve something. Since resolution is illogical, I will null this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.