Utopia Book 2

This book begins with a description of the cities on the island which was bland and basic because all of the cities are basically the same. But, he made a good point stating that "no town desires to enlarge its bounds, for the people consider themselves rather as tenants that landlords." I thought this was unusual because in normal society civilization and growth is based on size. Utopia was described as having a system that exposed all citizens to the agricultural based environment and the city based environment. It was a strange system, but even today having skills to sustain life by ways of agriculture is an advantage. Amaurot is one of the most proper Utopian cities surrounded by rivers and rolling hills. Citizens within the town use natural resources like rain water to provide for the people. Their government includes a magistrate (syphogrant) which is chosen by the people and represents a certain number of families in the surrounding areas. These chosen leaders make up a council which meets much like the Senate and decides on the issues of the whole island. From there he begins to describe the common family and everyday activities in Utopia. Agriculture is the main activity in the day and is followed with games like chess and reading. Gender roles are structured in Utopia and children are raised to be married and breed. Most Utopians are simple in style and clothing and material wealth does not mean much to them. Basic needs are fulfilled and the want for more showy or expensive stuff is not nonexistent. Women are basically grown up in a home were they learn the basic skills to raise a family which is their main purpose. Most of the dirty work involving slaughtering and killing of animals are done by household slaves. Traveling requires a passport and permission from the government, and without one can lead to harsh punishment. The basic idea of book 2 was that material wealth and flashy clothing meant nothing to Utopians.

My overall concern with this article was the strict gender roles that Utopians abide by. I do not think that women's' only purpose is to learn how to make sandwiches and have children. The way it was written women sounded like the were rented cars ("Their women, when they grow up, are married out"). I did not agree with the way that women were treated. They seem so limited on what they can experience.I also did not agree with the use of slaves to do the dirty work. That sounds so politically incorrect and cowardly to me. If my lifestyle was to farm and produce agriculture I would think that slaughtering animals was in the job description. However, in Utopia slaves are put up to do those jobs because they are viewed as dirty and impure. Knowledge seemed very important to Utopians and that is something that I agree with, obviously if people spend nearly half their lives getting an education it better be important. Overall, the things that bothered me the most were the strict gender roles and slavery.

Utopia Book 1

The first part of the essay talks about his refusal to aide the prince or king with his infinite wisdom. To Raphael, it seemed as if he was not inclined to participate in direct government in that position. He explained that he had too much of a temper. He defended himself by saying that governing bodies are selfish and listen and do only what allows them personal gain. They only are interested in war and fighting for material wealth and land power. He states that they are more concerned with attaining more land than governing their own people. He mentions the bad qualitites of a standing army. Civilizations like Syria fell due to their standing army and went to war only to occupy the soldiers. Following his explanation of his uninvolvement, he begins to speak of the death penalty. In some societies who had executed thieves for the mere crime of stealing. Although Raphael agreed it was indeed a punishable crime, he did not however believe that the proper punishment was death. He wondered how a crime like murder could have the same punishment as thievery. He then defended the poor by bringing up the point that they have no choice and it is by little fault of their own that they steal from others. He said those who are rich take land and the way of life from the poor and force them to steal and beg to stay alive. He then provides solutions to this problem including restricted wool prices and farm land availability. He labels those as slaves who have been convicted of robbery and establishes rules to govern only those stricken with robbery charges. Throughout the first twenty pages he mentions money as the base of all purpose numerous times and begs the question of the value of wealth.



POVERTY=NOTHING TO LOSE=CRIME

GOVERNMENT=SELFISH=CORRUPTION=POVERTY



I'll start with a disclaimer, it was 12:00 at night when I read the last five pages so don't judge my analysis. But, most of the time during the reading I kept asking myself two questions: What is justice? and Is money everything, even in Utopia? Those questions connected to much of what I read as the death penalty and poverty were the main subjects. I agree with the fact that death needs to be reserved for only heinous or high crimes, and if this was not to happen the justice system would have no rehabilitation value. The purpose of justice I think is to punish those who have committed crimes but also to rehabilitate those who can be saved and learn to become a more productive citizen. For example, the thieves mentioned in the reading would have the possibility to rehabilitate, but a mass murderer would not. Nevertheless, it still poses the question, What is a high crime to you? This is a matter of opinion and therefore the decision to sentence the death penalty can never fully be defined. Which poses another question in my mind, Who has the right to decide who lives and dies? The judge? The jury? The murderer? Questions, questions, and limited answers. Another question, Is money everything? Based on the reading I drew that in Utopia material wealth is not the highest priority. Even though money can never be taken out of a society, I can see Utopia having less issues with fiscal hierarchy. Material wealth seems to be a surface quality in many humans that ends up only fulfilling surface needs, wants, purpose, and fantasy. If money isn't life, what is? What can you possibly judge success on? Happiness? Love? Honesty? Integrity? or Cars? Houses?Bank Account? Personally, I would like to base my life on something below the surface. What would you choose?

my very fist blog