Philosophy Now Forum

Utopia is most important. All other concerns are not worth having. What good is being selfish? You will only receive your own help. What good is altruism? You will only teach people to take from you.

Since Utopia is most important, I will attempt to define the concept. In Utopia each person's goodness is leveraged to its maximum potential, and each person's weakness is minimized. In Utopia, people do not hate or fear a dystopia, instead they prepare to defeat it among themselves. Utopia is anarchistic, because no man's goodness can be multiplied in slavery.

What is this goodness of which I speak? It does not focus on the bad of self or others, but instead it works toward the effectuality of all. If someone is found to be ineffectual, they are not shunned nor made to feel inferior; instead, they are rehabilitated out of their pain and into the pleasure of best effect.

Mad ramblings!

Sounds like mutualism you are referring to, Systematic?

HexHammer wrote:Mad ramblings!

There is often much wisdom in madness.

Dalek Prime wrote:Sounds like mutualism you are referring to, Systematic?

I would call it totalism, since it is concerned with the good of the greater society as a whole rather than just two actors.

EDIT: I suppose you could take the concept of mutualism and apply it to everyone, then you would arrive at my meaning.

Systematic wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Sounds like mutualism you are referring to, Systematic?

I would call it totalism, since it is concerned with the good of the greater society as a whole rather than just two actors.

Oh. I'm not into positive utilitarianism. You may want to look up mutualism as an economic system, though. I think it might interest you.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Systematic wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Sounds like mutualism you are referring to, Systematic?

I would call it totalism, since it is concerned with the good of the greater society as a whole rather than just two actors.

Oh. I'm not into positive utilitarianism. You may want to look up mutualism as an economic system, though. I think it might interest you.

I'm not referring to an economic system nor a market. The payment is just the satisfaction and honor inherent in the advancement of everyone. If you use up everything you have in advancing everyone, then there is always more where that came from. There is no need to punish nor inhibit those who consistently do good.

More where that came from? Nuh-uh.

Satisfaction and honour as payment? You are just now talking about an economic system of happy volunteers. Again, nuh-uh.

Good luck convincing everyone, or anyone, else. It's just unworkable, given human behaviour. The closest your going to get is mutualism, and even then, mutualists don't have much hope in seeing their system thrive, either.

Systematic wrote:There is often much wisdom in madness.

No, bridges collaps, big buisness goes bankrupt, people get fired, mad people doesn't get admission into places that requires sanity.

..else prove me wrong.

..better now?

Who are you talking to, HH?

Yep. Better.

Ah, I saw your edit above, Systematic. Yep. Mutualism can arrive at similar to what you are going for. Btw, mutualism is supposed to be applied to everyone, as you say.

Any workable, sustainable social organization must have a vision of the ideal at center. Your Utopia is as pure as they come - even if that means lacking in particulars.

If we don't share a vision - a notion of what it what is best, what we hope to achieve, what is worth sacrificing short-term personal gain for - then we can't co-operate in a mutual enterprise. If the riveters, cement mixers and crane operators are all working to different blueprints, the bridge never gets built at all; construction deteriorates into a brawl.

"If the riveters, cement mixers and crane operators are all working to different blueprints, the bridge never gets built at all; construction deteriorates into a brawl."

The question: will the workmen work together voluntarily, each to satisfy his or her own agenda, or, will the workmen work together cuz they're made to?

'Will I rivet, mix, operate cuz -- in doing so -- I satisfy 'me', or, will I rivet, mix, operate cuz a jackboot kicks my ass I till do?'

The bridge gets built either way, but the difference in cost between the two is enormous.

henry quirk wrote: The question: will the workmen work together voluntarily, each to satisfy his or her own agenda, or, will the workmen work together cuz they're made to?

If they all want to cross the river, they don't have to be made to work together, they just need a good design. If none of them wants a bridge, and it why the hell should they build one? Maybe because the corporation that won't even let them use the bridge owns their ass?

Question: Who (what) is more likely to hobble a population?

Money-grubbing corporations?

...or...

Well-intentioned government?