The Instigator
LostintheEcho1498
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
voxprojectus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The creation of a utopia is impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 56166
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

LostintheEcho1498

Pro

This is going to be in this format:
1. acceptance
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:)
voxprojectus

Con

Lovely question, thanks for positing it!

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!
Debate Round No. 1
LostintheEcho1498

Pro

Alright the conclusion problem is fixed in the comments. Now, lets get this party started!

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!
voxprojectus

Con

I am going to make my opening statement without referring to my esteemed opponent's as requested. as such, our definition of Utopia may slightly differ, but I suspect will be close enough for the purposes of this debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
LostintheEcho1498

Pro

Alright, to start, thank you for following the set up and being patient with my response. Now to the debate:

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!
voxprojectus

Con

The issue is this: By insisting that the definition of Perfection be limited to individual perception, you leave a gaping problem for yourself:

Either, Utopia/Perfection is Objective and we may fail to realize it (my definition,)

OR

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.
Debate Round No. 3
LostintheEcho1498

Pro

To make sure you understand this we are showing our final evidence. No rebuttals. Only evidence. You may restate any previously said evidence but it cannot be rebuttal. Thank you for debating with me and I will jump right in!

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:)
voxprojectus

Con

Progress is progress. While humans may slip and falter, we move forward.

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!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 3 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
This is a poor choice of words. By definition, a Utopia cannot be reached.

u"to"pi"a
yoV2;oG2;t!3;pēə/
noun
an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The word was first used in the book Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More.

Key word is imagined.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
Humanity, may one day travel on the road to utopia.

http://www.bookdaily.com...
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 3 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
Wow I posted this two days ago and check it to find a contender and comments. That's a first. Anyway, I will be debating later today. As for the Conclusion, I was a little sleepy and I kinda messed up there. Conclusion is final evidence but no rebuttals. Thanks for your patience!
Posted by Lunalilo 3 years ago
Lunalilo
You are 100% correct! But people believe it the same things for different reasons. Someone might not. Believe in God but believes that abortion is wrong because they love babies... Or hate suffering. Another would believe the same because the God they believe in says life starts in the womb (which indeed, is their religious belief). I'm not debating, I just trying to state observations.
Posted by alyfish126 3 years ago
alyfish126
Also, @lunalilo I would love to argue against abortion without citing religious beliefs. I am not a christian but religion doesn't have to play a part in moral stances.
Posted by alyfish126 3 years ago
alyfish126
That is a tough one to debate because of all the possible factors of perfection. I would love to take this on but I need a bit more clarity on which factors will be focused on.
Posted by Lunalilo 3 years ago
Lunalilo
To not debate religion on a religious topic is futile. It's like asking a Christian to debate why they're con abortion without citing their religious beliefs.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
LostintheEcho1498voxprojectusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
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.