Final BNW Blog

Religion is distanced from the workings of the state. In Brave New World, if you are not a world controller then you will have no religious education, and although the world controllers are educated about religion they separate it from the workings of the state. This is similar to America in regards to the separation of church and state. Another way the societies in BNW and America are similar is the way they define who the good and bad citizens are. In BNW there are rigid distinctions that identify who contributes to the betterment of society and who is breaking the rules. This is determined by who does their job and follows the rules of conditioning. In America there are also certain norms created by society judging who is and is not a good person. The good are patriotic, educated, working citizens who provide for a family and make a decent life. Vagrants and deviants are seen as second class people. A third similarity between the two is their emphasis on consumerism. In BNW the people believe in consuming as much as possible and view it as a sign of progress or achievement. America is similar in regards to this. We view consumerism as key to the stability of society, and accumulation of wealth is typically a measuring stick of success.

BNW Blog #2 - Conditioning Lenina vs. John

Lenina:

• Gives into the idea that society should be put before the individual
• Wants people to be very forward in their advances on eachother. Emphasizes liking someone in an encounter without emotional attachment
• She lost individualism through her conditioning by being conditioned through a technological and uniform approach
• Hypnopaedia has taken all control over her personality and cognitive developments to rigidly define right and wrong, there is no grey area and she is the same as everyone else

John:

• Has genuine affection for people, especially for Linda
• Shows reluctance in making advances towards women. Emphasizes *love* in a relationship with emotional attachment
• Is conditioned through nuanced and varying aspects of the natural human condition (relatively natural) that he is surrounded with on the reservation
• The Shakespearan conditioning was part of a larger system of conditioning. John learned from the ways of life of the savages, but also from Shakespeares teachings. This allowed for John to interpret the interactions he had with others so he had a part in his conditioning

Lenina is unable to emphasize with John's approach to the relationship with her, becuase she doesn't understand how a person might be reluctant to enter a relationship the way John (and most of us) see relationshps. John is also unable to express his love for Lenina in a way she can understand what he means because she literally has no concept of love.

Brave New World Post #1

Things similar between Utopia and Brave New World

• there is an emphasis on music
• people are afforded little privacy
• everyone works for the good of everyone else
• they look down on other civilizations as if they are inferior

The best part of Brave New World is the health of the population. Most diseases are eradicated and people have instant access to ways to ensure their health. This is good because if a population is healthy they are able to worry about bigger issues. As Maslow identifies, an individuals wellness must come before anything else.

The worst part of Brave New World is the splintering of families. I think a comforting family unit is critical for human development. A family unit makes people become responsible and is needed for role modeling and teaching lessons to younger people.

Utopia pgs. 41-61 - Assignment #3

-Slavery: slaves are taken from people who have comitted high crimes, people from other nations that Utopia take over who have been given the death penalty, people who have committed adultery, and from travellers who are caught without approval of the Prince. Native slaves are treated much worse than foreign slaves since the Natives should have known better than to commit a crime given their upbringing in Utopia. The Prince can restore liberty if it is proven that a slave has earned their freedom through work.
*The concept of slavery is a brutal one, but I think the way Utopians approach slavery is just. It creates good for the society and the slaves are able to regain their slavery if they show repentence. I would also prefer to be out and working as a slave than to be in a jail cell for my whole life.

-Sick and dying: The sick are cared for immensely and given the best treatment available. The old are also able to have their lives taken from them if they do not wish to stay alive.
*The caring for the sick is probably agreeable for all people, but the mercy killing is probably contentious. I think mercy killing is a just taking of life, because if a person is unable to function and generate happiness for themself they might as well die. A person also has the right to choose their own life, in my opinion.

-Marriage and relations: There is to be no sex before marriage, but before a marriage is approved both people will see the other naked in order to identify any imperfections the other may have. There is to be no polygamy, and divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery or perverseness.
*I think that as basic principles these are good, but if they are actually laws then it is unjust because I believe a person should have the right to make decisions regarding their own life.

-Law: There are few laws because the Constitution is so tight and neatly written. As a result of the simplicity there are no lawyers in the land and people are to defend themselves in court.
*On face this seems to be a pretty awesome idea. People will represent themselves rather than have law experts fighting over stuff using legal jargon. The law will also be simple and easy to understand.

-War: Men and women are both allowed to fight in war if they volunteer, but the main source of soldiers is hiring people from other nations. Utopia believes it is just to use deceptive means to end a war, such as offering citizens of other nations rewards to kill that nations leader. The Utopian armies fight boldly until the last man, but they would rather let their enemies escape than pursue them.
*I disagree with the Utopians when it comes to hiring out for soldiers, because if a nation is worth keeping then it is worth fighting for. It just seems very wussy. However, when it comes to war anything goes, so the rest fo the principles are just.

-Religion: Religious freedom is tolerated in Utopia. Most people believe in one deity, and people who do not believe in a deity are virtually shunned. The number of priests in the land are purposefully kept at a low number so the virtue of the position is maintained. The temples are magnificent by no images of God are created. There are no animal sacrifices.
*I finally agree with the Utopians when it comes to religion. Religion is too ambiguous and it is impossible to find the truth so freedom is the most fair way of approaching.

Utopia Summary/Explanation Part 2 - pages 20-41

-People are essentially accountable for all parts of a society, and people are to act as a unit rather than as an individual. This manifests itself in almost all policies that Raphael describes. One of these is the system of having people in the city also working in the country. People are also not allowed any property. They are to move from home to home every few years and can be ordered to move from place to place as the government sees fit.
*In theory, this is excellent. However, I am more of an individualist and I believe that you should only be accountable for yourself, and to give what would be property in our society to all of the community makes you rely on the goodwill of others to have a good life. I do not agree with the idea that the government can move people from place to place, because I believe in autonomy.

-People are not to be overworked. With this idea in mind, the number of hours a person works is regulated by the government. The people are to dedicate a great deal of the rest of their time to reading or going about other ways of improving their minds.
*I think the idea of having more people on the whole working less hours individually is good because it burdens all of society with the workload rather than a few people who work. However, I do not know how to get all of the population to work. I also do not know how a culture would be able to motivate its whoel citizenry to strive to attaining knowledge.

-There are rules regarding how people should be frugal. This includes the idea that people should only own one set of clothes. They also have a unique way of holding onto their gold and other precious metals. They keep their gold on slaves and diamonds are just child toys.
*I think it is noble that the people are not eccentric, but the personal expression that clothes allow for is a freedom that I do not think the government should intrude on. But for a country who does not rely on money for exchanging goods, the ways of keeping gold/diamonds is a good idea.

-Utopia will never use its people to fight in war. It will instead pay for mercenaries to do the fighting, and the only just cause of war is to set up colonies when the cities in Utopia are overcrowded and the land they are taking over is idle.
*I think that war is rarely just, and to take land from another nation by force because you have become overcrowded is one of those cases.

Assignment 1 - pages 1-20 concepts introduced by raphael

The first concept Raphael introduced that I was able to identify contrasts with the United States today. Raphael argues that it is unwise for a nation to maintain a standing army, because it was the maintenance of standing armies in Rome, Carthage, Syria, and other nations and cities that was their downfall. He supports this argument by saying that statesmen will seek out war in order to keep the armies from becoming idle. Raphael also argues that perpetually equipping armies is a financially costly undertaking. Next, Raphael uses a conversation with a lawyer about how to properly punish thieves to introduce a concept for governance. He says that it is not just for all crimes to be capital. If the punishment for theft is the same as the punishment for murder, then the criminal who would have only stolen from another man would also kill the other man. The next three principals that Raphael introduces are similar in that they are all related to economics. The first is that a king should forfeit his throne if he has made his subjects poor and miserable through oppression. The second is that a king should care more about the wealth of his kingdom and those inhabiting it more than of his own riches. A public’s safety is closely related to its level of impoverishment, and it is unbecoming of a king to rule over beggars. A king is less likely to oppress his people if money is able to be exchanged through an equitable and free system of commerce. Still, Raphael actually believes that a kingdom will be ruled unjustly and its subjects will live unhappily if there are notions of property and money becomes the standard of all things. He supports this by saying property and money will be divided in a way that makes parts of the population unhappy. Finally, Raphael explains that a nation should not seek to expand, but should instead govern itself efficiently. The conquered people will always be in revolution or under invasion from another force. This means they will constantly be displeasured by war and the king will be able to pay little attention to the new land.
I fundamentally agree with the first argument regarding standing armies. An army of professionals costs the state money to maintain and encourages rulers to act aggressively. Yet, I think it is a dangerous option to have no military at all, so I believe a military should be restricted in size just as a leader should be restricted in the ways they could use the military. I also agree with Raphael’s next argument regarding the punishment of crimes. It makes perfect sense to me that not all crimes are proportionate in the way they affect society, and it therefore fits that the retribution would be most just if the response to the crime is proportionate. The next two arguments deal with a king’s economic duty to the kingdom, and I agree with both of Raphael’s concepts. I believe a country’s leadership is in place to serve the country so it may prosper, and by hoarding money or instituting oppressive monetary policies a king is not serving the country properly. However, I disagree with Raphael when he says that a nation cannot be happy or just if it is based on a system of money and property. If he were alive (and non-fictional) I would challenge him to offer an alternative method of exchanging goods and services. This sort of system would only work if a nation were to never expand and people were able to be self-reliant, but in the modern world it seems like it would be impossible. Finally, I disagree with the notion that a nation should not seek to expand. I do not see how a population would be able to contain itself in a given area of land over an extended period of time if that population were to continually grow. As the number of people living in a nation grows, the infrastructure to support the growth must grow alongside.