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?
Plato argues in the Republic that traditional family structures get in the way of utopian aspirations, but he is incorrect. In fact, his ideas take away from the happiness of his republic, and happiness is a crucial component of a utopian society. In Plato’s republic, humans are bred like dogs or cattle. He explains that “the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible” (47). Men and women with “ideal” traits are glorified and forced to procreate with one another while everybody else is looked down upon. This strategy of building families that Plato views as utopian is actually quite the opposite. It eliminates people from being able to choose the partner with whom they want to have children. A woman with “ideal” traits, mentally or physically, can not choose to marry and have children with a man who carries traits that are frowned upon, even if they are in love. Getting rid of one’s ability to choose their own husband or wife is getting rid of one’s freedom. That is a breach of their rights, and their happiness will suffer. A true utopian society would not hinder their people’s ability to make their own decisions, and would not force them to do anything they do not desire. Additionally, in Plato’s utopia, “no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent” (45). One of life’s biggest joys is becoming a mother or father and raising a child. One’s child becomes their priority and their reason to continue living. Yet, Plato’s radical ideas will make nobody in his republic feel that happiness ever again. He wants no parent to know who their children are in order to prevent parents from being biased towards their offspring. However, it is clear that the denial of the natural human experience of raising a child in order to eliminate the issue of parents being biased towards their children is cruel and unnecessary. Furthermore, a true utopia, unlike the Republic, would not have either of these issues.
ReplyDeletePlato's thoughts can be seen as reasonable given the circumstances, but they are ultimately flawed. Love and sex are often linked to relationships or marriage, as they are essential for maintaining the happiness of both partners. When something like procreation becomes a routine and spreading your seed is glorified, it raises a major red flag when envisioning an ideal society. This can lead to issues such as not knowing one's children, as Plato himself mentions, and it can also erode the moral foundations of sexual relationships and their benefits within relationships. On page forty-six, Plato expresses his thoughts, “‘And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?’ ‘From the best.’” This quote vividly articulates the dynamics of relationships within this community. It highlights how individuals who are considered attractive are often idealized and pressured to procreate to produce better-looking offspring, even if they may not have any knowledge of their children. This flaw in the community's ideals is particularly significant when considering the concept of utopian societies, which should ideally be characterized by a lack of societal standards and equality among all individuals rather than conforming to the moral standards set forth by Plato. Removing someone’s choice of marriage is equal to stripping their freedom from them entirely. The beautiful thing about marriage is that it connects two soul mates and binds them together for life as a joyful couple. In this society, the goal is to practically spread your “good” genes to everyone to produce more attractive offspring, and the cycle continues. It was also interesting when a question asked, “Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition” (47). Having two of the “best” looking people in the community mate is almost like a law to them. If someone unattractive has sex with a so-called attractive person, that would be looked down upon in the community, and both parties would be shamed for committing such sinful acts. This utopia doesn’t sound happy in the slightest bit, as it is very competitive and cutthroat. Overall, Plato’s view on traditional family living and self-morals is unfit for a utopian society, let alone any society. Going around and trying to spread your genes with as many people as possible should not be glorified, therefore making Plato’s thinking immoral and wrong.
ReplyDelete