3 ms·

I've always thought of Utopia being peace insofar as a society that cannot harm an individual, and cannot allow individuals to harm other individuals, which I s

I've always thought of Utopia being peace insofar as a society that cannot harm an individual, and cannot allow individuals to harm other individuals, which I suppose aligns pretty closely to Orwell's notion of "brotherhood". Such simple principles would solve the issues of: * racism * homophobia * moral indignation * xenophobia * extreme economic disparity, such that those with means are actively holding down or holding back those without * lack of access to health services If we solve all of those things, we'll still have problems. We'll still have people disagreeing, people fighting. People struggling. What we might also have, however, is the desire to also work with others, rather than go to our deaths over issues because of such potent underlying bitterness. The human race is flawed enough as it is. We don't need manifest disagreements spawned by religion or dogma, for instance, to fuel the flames.

stcredzero 8y ago
moral indignation What if the vast majority of society wants to harm the individual, saying that, "you can't tolerate the intolerant?" In recent years, that seems to me to be a doublethink way of justifying intolerance in the name of intolerance. extreme economic disparity, such that those with means are actively holding down or holding back those without Reality is rarely black and white, 0 or 1. Very often, people using some unfair non-meritocratic means to preserve their position are also creating more wealth. Also, exactly what constitutes "unfair non-meritocratic means" is often up for debate. The human race is flawed enough as it is. We don't need manifest disagreements spawned by religion or dogma, for instance, to fuel the flames. Angry adherence to dogma is a kind of human flaw! It seems that almost anyone can convince themselves they're fighting for a good cause, as they are oppressing or even murdering people. The most used emotional-descriptive word used during the Nuremberg rallies was, "Love." If you want to judge intolerance, don't pay attention to the dogma. Note who is hating whom, and who is using violence on whom.

stcredzero 8y ago

moral indignation What if the vast majority of society wants to harm the individual, saying that, "you can't tolerate the intolerant?" In recent years, that seems to me to be a doublethink way of justifying intolerance in the name of intolerance. extreme economic disparity, such that those with means are actively holding down or holding back those without Reality is rarely black and white, 0 or 1. Very often, people using some unfair non-meritocratic means to preserve their position are also creating more wealth. Also, exactly what constitutes "unfair non-meritocratic means" is often up for debate. The human race is flawed enough as it is. We don't need manifest disagreements spawned by religion or dogma, for instance, to fuel the flames. Angry adherence to dogma is a kind of human flaw! It seems that almost anyone can convince themselves they're fighting for a good cause, as they are oppressing or even murdering people. The most used emotional-descriptive word used during the Nuremberg rallies was, "Love." If you want to judge intolerance, don't pay attention to the dogma. Note who is hating whom, and who is using violence on whom.