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?
Although both Condorcets and Mores’ arguments have some merit, their claims would both fall flat in the real world. Combining their two opposing and extreme views would provide the best strategy for achieving a society as equal as possible. In his essay, Condorcet argues that “wealth has a natural tendency to equality … any excess disproportion could not exist … if free trade and industry were allowed to remove the advantages that accrued wealth derives.” He states the natural laws of the universe will eventually draw all humans toward equality, and that any regulation would disturb this process. However, this claim has been disproven many times in history. For example, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the American government embraced laissez-faire capitalism and imposed almost no industrial regulations. These policies would have led to equality in Condorcet's mind, but the opposite happened in reality. Large monopolies devoured all other competition by keeping costs low, which resulted in ordinary workers having nonexistent wages and excessively long working hours. Any attempts at unionization were forcefully quelled, and endless nepotism and corruption resulted in the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. Condorcet’s view has many flaws, and More’s arguments don’t fare much better. In More’s piece, he argues that the perfect society involves complete sharing and homogeneity in every aspect of life. But if resources are shared equally between people regardless of any factors, then what’s the point of working hard? If the same results occur after working for 10 or 30 hours, any rational person would pick the 10-hour option and hope the others pick up the slack. Eventually, enough people would develop this mentality for the civilization to collapse. The best solution to equality would be a combination of Condorcet and Mores’ views - a society where people have motivation to work hard, but enough regulation to avoid corruption and worker abuse. While this system isn’t perfect, it’s the best option possible.
ReplyDeleteIn Condorcet’s argument, he states that the best way to achieve equality is to get rid of all of the advantages of being a noble. I do agree with getting rid of the status of nobility. In its essence, if people were better than others and could do more things, there is no equality. Condorcet states three main things, “these differences have three main causes: inequality in wealth: inequality in status between the main whose means of subsistence are hereditary…finally, inequality in education…” (PG 204.) If you are born or are in the higher nobility and riches in life, you are guaranteed to have all three of these things. You are overly wealthy, the status between you and the common man is overly different, and the inequality in education is completely different. You are able to use your wealth to obtain a better education than the common men which sets you up for better forthcoming in life. The definition of equality is that everyone has the same status, riches, and opportunities. In each one of these aspects, the nobility is extremely deviated from the mean. If you were to get rid of the nobility/rich, everyone would be the common man, which would in turn, lead to equality. On the contrary, I do not believe having a free market would lead to equality. In a completely free market with no regulations, you would get the same nobility and rich people that you were set to get rid of. There would eventually be people who get rich enough from the free market, creating the same divide you originally had. If you were to make a semi-free market, it could work. There would have to be regulations as to how much you could sell and buy to where it can't set you apart from others.
ReplyDeleteThomas More argues that abolishing private property is the best way to achieve equality. Condorcet argues that the way to achieve equality is not by abolishing private property but by abolishing the privileges of the nobility and creating a free market. Both More and Condorcet’s ideas have pros and cons. I believe that Condorcet’s view is that abolishing the nobility is a better idea. More’s view of abolishing private property sets too many restrictions. Condorcet’s view is more practical and I also believe that people would react in a better way to this. Equality is also difficult to achieve or cultivate in an environment with people. More believes that people easily become corrupted by power and wealth, and by taking away the ability of people living in different living conditions, we can achieve equality. Condorcet’s view is that fairness will achieve equality and that everyone has a chance to reach a level that they want to be in. I think both have good arguments, but I feel like More’s beliefs have too many restrictions which may just set back humans and cause more problems to society. Humans may not be able to progress and move forward or innovate. Condorcet’s beliefs also bring up some problems, such as that people don’t all start from the same place, so even if creating a free market were to happen, people would start at different points. Being born at a disadvantage would make it much harder to become successful compared to others who were previously at an advantage. There is also a moral perspective to look at. More’s belief in my opinion seems to take away some of the freedom that humans have. Adding a free market seems like a more morally correct idea, but still not perfect, and so the question arises as to, what is the perfect solution?
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent. I think that abolishing of the nobility would be good. As well as the idea that there should be free trade. However I don't agree with much else that is said here. I think that the very nature of being a human being is flawed and therefore there is no true utopia. Past that, no matter who you are, and what you do human nature will dictate that we try to gain power over one another. Past that the saying of, "the state" providing housing and all of that, what's to keep the state from making some houses secretly better than a different one. Past that you have no sense of individuality, which could make people feel awkward for living in a certain way. Say someone doesn't want as big of a house since they live by themselves. Too bad, you get one anyway. Oh, I want to eat at home today, nope you can't come to the large dining hall and get everyone else sick.
ReplyDeleteWe as humans always strive for perfection, it could be sports, art, or even the way we live. Raphael’s idea of utopia gives us a society where all needs are met and there are no social inequalities. But in order for Rapheal’'s society to come into fruition, sacrifices had to be made. Class, clothing, and private property are abolished in this community, with the intention of the society members feeling equal. Although I do agree with this method of making the perfect society, the methods of doing so are flawed. Thomas More's and Raphael’s society both eliminate the idea of individuality, which in my opinion eliminates the entire idea of an ideal society. A society is completely dependent on its individual citizens and if those individuals don’t have specific needs met or they are not able to live the life they truly want, is it really a society? Furthermore I do believe the ideal class could be the right pathway toward utopia. Social class is a big distinction between people in a society, not just in ability to obtain things others can’t, but the ability to have better opportunities others can’t. With the implication of social class comes currency, and although it may be good for the region and some citizens, others have take the fall. We run the risk of some citizens being left nothing no food, houses, or even clothing, this encourages crime, therefore creating a domino effect into a corrupt society. Although i do agree with Rapheal’s idea of a perfect their are still flaws within his methods which makes believe there is no true way to a perfect society.
ReplyDelete