Utopia

Rating:
Summary: Bone-chillingly cruel
Review: Like Plato, Thomas More presents his social philosophy in the form of a dialogue. Besides being sexist, anti-Semitic, and anti-indigenous, his communist Utopia is appalling in the harshness of its laws. From beginning to end he speaks of little else than the minor infractions that condemn one to servitude. Hapless citizens do not enjoy freedom of speech, religion, choice of employment, or mobility. The senators and priests are basically tyrants: the former can arbitrarily choose whatever punishments they see fitting, and the latter are immune to punishment. Yet More considers the citizens happy because they perform only necessary work, fear no hunger, and are protected from their own inclination to sin.

As a society entirely without currency, Utopia could have been far more satirical and insightful. The one part I really liked was when More said that only chamber pots and slave chains should be made out of gold.

More's conception of pride is poorly defined. On the one hand, he thinks that lust for private property, cash, and beautiful clothes generates greed, anxiety, and an idle upper class that is the root of injustice; on the other hand, Utopia's system of moral rewards and punishments inculcates a certain kind of pride. Why is it an evil wish to desire fine clothing, yet right and reasonable to desire public titles, proper marriages, and decent cremations?

The Utopians fight only defensive wars, for which they hire soldiers from other countries, who clearly deserve to die anyway because of their greed. If the Utopians are forced to fight, entire family units must go to the front, because it would be shameful for a spouse or child to survive a fallen hero. The terminally ill are persuaded to end their own lives. Reluctance to die indicates a guilty conscience, and these will be buried dishonorably, as do unapproved suicides.

According to More, in the real 16th-century England, women contribute exactly zero useful labor; this is to be rectified. In Utopia, women may marry at 18 and men at 22, and husbands rule over their wives. The fiances should view each other naked. After all, "men will refuse to buy a colt, unless they take off its saddle and harness." They should not, however, touch either other. Premarital sex should be "severely punished," including forbidding the guilty parties from ever obtaining a legal marriage. After marriage, extramarital sex is punished by enslavement, and a second offense by death. Should the spouse of an adulterer not desire a divorce, he or she is permitted to share the penalty of enslavement.

Meals are eaten in the town hall, because, More assumes, no one enjoys cooking for themselves. Men and women sit in separate areas so that the women, perpetually pregnant, may excuse themselves to the nursery to play with babies if they do not feel well. Travelers are denied meals unless they work for it; a relative's permission is required to walk around the district and a senator's permission to leave the city.

Though superstitions may differ, all Utopians must share a fundamental belief in Heaven and Hell. People who don't believe in Hell are undoubtedly disposed to crime; although you can't force them to change their opinion, you can forbid them to speak. On the other hand, people who speak about hell with too much zeal and enthusiasm are exiled for causing social unrest. One must have precisely the right quantity of theology. Yet if the fear of God and Hell is the path to virtue, why does Utopia need so many civic penalties? And if those civic penalties are in place and functioning, why is religious fear necessary?

More did not carefully consider the contradictions and gray area in his theory. Overall, his Utopia amounts to a regimented, communist slave-state with a penal code harsher than Leviticus. It ignores basic human psychology, creativity, and dignity. One wonders if he welcomed his 1535 beheading for religious and political dissent as an act of utopian justice.

Rating:
Summary: It made me think.
Review: Maybe the ideals of a Utopian Society wouldn't work in modern times but it's fun to think about. In Utopia everything is equal and everything is fair. Although the society sounds ideal, it also makes a person realize why they wouldn't want to live like that. The book introduces ideas that are still unbelievable almost 500 years later.

Rating:
Summary: A subtle satire
Review: More's "Utopia" is not meant to be a portrayal the perfect society. Rather, by presenting the virtues of an obviously fictional paradise, More is backhandedly criticizing his contemporary society, in a time where such criticism could land one in very hot water. In this respect, More's work is similar to what Swift did later in "Gulliver's Travels".

Many of More's critiques of Renaissance society remain valid today. From crime and punishment to church and state, More diagnoses the ills of his time, and ours. While short on real cures for these maladies, this book remains a literary classic and the first step towards a real Utopia.

Rating:
Summary: A classic text that paved the way for an entire genre
Review: More's "Utopia" makes us search for an answer to the question "How SHOULD our society operate?" More's great book was the first attempt to deal with this question in literature, and it opened the flood-gates for hundreds of others in the centuries to follow. Whether More's society is practical is a question of no consequence to its purpose, and thus should not be asked. We can no more criticize More for being impractical in his Utopia than we can berate Homer for being fantasmal in his "Odyssey."

Rating:
Summary: One of Philosophy's few quick-reads!
Review: Paul Turner (Translator) brings up excellent points in the introduction, which makes this one of the best translations of More's Utopia. All things considered, it's better reading if you consider it for entertainment value more so than a framework for an ideal society.

Rating:
Summary: Utopia is satire
Review: Please, please understand: Utopia is not Thomas Moore's philosophy or dream of perfect world, or something unbearably cruel that he believed was right in real time. Utopia is SATIRE. Entirely satire. Political lampooning.
It is unsettling to read reviews by people who have completely missed this, which is precisely the kind of thing Moore was satirizing.
Read it for the brilliant piece that it is - do not take it literally for heaven's sake!
This is akin to taking Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" seriously, and failing to see the social and political satire - Swift proposes eating Irish children to stop the overpopulation. Satire!

Rating:
Summary: Utopia is satire
Review: Please, please understand: Utopia is not Thomas Moore's philosophy or dream of perfect world, or something unbearably cruel that he believed was right in real time. Utopia is SATIRE. Entirely satire. Political lampooning.
It is unsettling to read reviews by people who have completely missed this, which is precisely the kind of thing Moore was satirizing.
Read it for the brilliant piece that it is - do not take it literally for heaven's sake!
This is akin to taking Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" seriously, and failing to see the social and political satire - Swift proposes eating Irish children to stop the overpopulation. Satire!

Rating:
Summary: One man's vision of a perfect world
Review: Sir Thomas More's "Utopia" was one of the best books I ever read. Not only a must for philosophers but anyone interested in dreaming for the future. Originally intended for use in the New World in America, "Utopia" details every little thing about this perfect society, including rules during meals, family planning, and even the complete daily schedule. Many of the ideas brought up by "Utopia" are outdated, such as slaves and extreme chauvinism. But, it is written in a somewhat modern language which makes it quite easy to understand. I strongly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: Everyone takes this book out of context
Review: That's right. This book was written as a rebuttal against those who actually DO believe that a "perfect" society can exsist. As you read further into the text, you'll realize that Moore's seemingly practical, nearly attainable ideals become increasingly distorted and far-fetched. Not unlike large chunks of our own worldview, no?

Rating:
Summary: it should br for classic people
Review: The position of More's "Utopia" is rather like that of the baby in the Jugement of Solomon One school of thought claims it as a Catholic tract in which anything resembling communist propaganda should be interpreted as moral allegory. Another claims it as a politial manifesto, in which all references to religion should be firmly ignored. Both claimants seem more concerned with the rights of ownership than with the work itself, and are quite prepared to chop it in half, or at least to pluck out and cast from they any part of its anatomy that offends them.