Gulliver and Horses and Yahoos - -Oh My!

 In Part IV of Gulliver’s Travels, Lemuel Gulliver is abandoned by his mutinous crew in the Land of the Houyhnhnms, a country ruled by rational horses but also inhabited by human-like brutes called Yahoos.  Gulliver says of the Land of the Houyhnhnms:

I had not yet been a year in this country before I contracted such a love and veneration for the inhabitants, that I entered on a firm resolution never to return to humankind, but to pass the rest of my life among these admirable Houyhnhnms, in the contemplation and practice of every virtue, where I could have no example or incitement to vice.

Clearly, Gulliver believes he lives in a utopia – but is he correct?  Is the novel proposing that the Land of the Houyhnhnms is a utopia?  A dystopia?  Is it satirizing the entire concept of a utopia?  Or is something else going on?  And what is the role of the Yahoos in your interpretation?

Equality and Private Property

In Utopia Thomas More argues that in order to achieve equality it is necessary to abolish private property.  In his vision of a utopia, the state provides everyone the same food (which they eat in common dining halls), lives in the same kinds of home and wears the same kind of clothing.  Condorcet, appealing to principles in the new science of economics, argues that the best way to achieve equality is to abolish the privileges of the nobility and create a free market.

Which view, if any, is correct?  Is equality even a important political value?  Is it even achievable?

Philosopher-Kings: Is Expertise All You Need?

Plato famously argues that the ideal ruler of a state is a philosopher.  He gives at least two arguments for this conclusion, one based on a philosopher's wisdom and knowledge and other about the philosopher's moral character (courage, incorruptibility, etc).  Focusing on ONE of these arguments, is Plato correct?  Is a philosopher an ideal candidate to rule?  Or is there something important for leadership that a philosopher may be missing?  

The Family and Utopia

Plato argues in the Republic that in order to create his ideal state the traditional family structure needs to be scrambled.  The traditional family of two parents and their offspring will be replaced by communities in which all people of a certain age will be considered parents.  Couples will have children but they will have sexual relations based on breeding rather than mutual affection -- and they will not know which children they have begotten.  Furthermore, women will no longer be second-class citizens whose primary role is in the domestic sphere: they too can be rulers and warriors.

 Is Plato correct that traditional family structures get in the way of utopian aspirations?  Would other utopian thinkers agree or disagree?  Do you agree or disagree -- and why?

Is Hawken School a Utopian Society?

 Many parents and students seek out private schools like Hawken not only for their superb education but also to become members of a refined and elite community.  Indeed, they are willing to spend thousands of dollars of their hard-earned income to do so.  Some people may even be tempted to think of Hawken as a kind of Utopian school, better than ordinary schools that most other students must attend.

But are such aspirations to Utopia merited?  Are there elements of the Hawken experience that fit the model of Utopia -- and are there elements that fall short?  According to the standards of More's Utopia, is it a Utopia? 

No More Lululemon, Tesla, Or Uggs?

Perhaps the most striking and controversail element of More's Utopian society in Utopia is the abolition of private property (and the related reforms of uniform homes and clothing, communal living and the absence of currency).  As Raphael professes in Book 1, "I must freely own that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily (44).  He adds just a page later, "I am persuaded that till property is taken away, there can be no equitable or just distribution of things, not can the world be happily governed. . . (45).

What is the problem with private property?  Why is it a problem (what is one possible objection or argument against it)?  Consider such issues as equality, envy or resentiment, and providing for basic necessities (perhaps human rights).  Is it convincing?  Are there problems with abolishing private propert and money (as well as luxury items such as fancy houses and trendy clothing)?  Is Raphael correct about private property?

Blindspots and Unintended Consequences

More's Utopia is supposed to be a book (as he writes in the subtitle) "conerning the best state of a commonwealth."  Indeed there are many aspects of Utopian society that are progressive even by our standards.  Yet at the same time there are elements of his ideal society that seem anything but ideal.  He exhibits biases based on his own cultural, social and historical background.  Also, there are some promising and even praiseworthy values that have unintended negative consequences.

Focus on one such blindspot or unintended consequences.  Where do you see it in the text and how can (if at all) a defender of the values of Utopia address those concerns?  Can Utopia be fixed to avoid the blindspot or negative consequence? Or perhaps the so-called blindspot or negative consequence really is such a problem if you examine it closely.