How would you Create a Utopia?

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, ALine said:

By letting those members of your family inside of the society you could risk having those individuals who would otherwise fail the "morality exam" kill anyone and everyone. Just because they are your family does not mean that they will not want to harm others. You might believe that they are nice, kind and innocent however they may be someone who would kill others when they are sleeping. Your family would be protected but other families in this society would not be. The morality exam would be created by everyone within that society so that those entering that society would know who they would like to let in to become apart of that society. It would be unwise to let someone in who would simply start collecting resources in order to eventually cause mass hysteria and rioting and murder. Please note that the morality exam would not be a static examination. Calling it an exam is like calling bread a "meat carrier." It would be constantly changing in order to fit the needs of the individuals of this society so that they would select who would be apart of this society. There is no one person who decides whether or not people are allowed in or not. 

This is getting into Minority Report territory. The OP asks how to build a Utopia. For me the potential of being separated from my spouse and family wouldn't be a Utopia. I would rather take my chances in the society I am currently in. 

[ALine]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

History is full of society creating tests for citizens Purity, Loyalty, Theological,and etc have all done used. It always leads to oppression. The moment a test is instituted an us vs them is created. Us vs them is always divisive. I do not believe Utopia can be created by dividing people.  

Yes, you are correct; each one of these societies creates certain "qualification exams" in order to allow for individuals to be allowed into the society that they are apart of. There would be no different from what those societies would be like vs my proposed idea of a utopia at first glance. Oppression is the result of individuals not having there wants and needs to be met along with there own personal opinions an judgments heard. But what if you kept everyone informed on what they society as a who is doing, raise individuals to only listen to empirically rational arguments that are only based upon reality, Raise them to also believe that everything should be questioned no matter what it is or where it comes from, and that everyone should be respected no matter who they are with the utmost care? You would most likely create a society who is extremely well informed about everything, have heightened critical thinking abilities, and will know how to determine if someone is trying to come into power or gain power from someone else. Everyone in that society would be so intelligent that no one would be able to manipulate their behaviors or try to change there mind with propaganda. The only thing that could sway them would be arguments based in reality. This would not be a test to maintain purity, or loyalty, or religious belief. It is a test to see if you would harm another individual or if you would kill someone else, or even if you would rape someone else. It is not about creating a test would look for certain ideas which would eventually cause the society to think like one person; it is about finding individuals who question everything including themselves to determine if there ideas or ideologies are flawed. The individuals of this society must be as informed and as knowledgeable about their world around them as possible in order for a system like this to work. 

Also, the morality exam would not be based on future actions that "may" occur because anything can happen. But what has already occurred and their ability to be swayed by logic and reason which is grounded in reality. 

Also the "morality exam" would know if someone if a psychopath or a sociopath due to the complexity of the "morality exam." So it would know if someone was lying to 100 percent accuracy. This can be presumed due to the increasing intelligence of the general populous within the society.

Edited July 1, 2018 by ALine

[YaDinghus]

14 minutes ago, ALine said:

The basis for this idea " an evidence-based society" is rooted in the argument or claim that " An evidence-based society can work if individuals are raised to think critically and rationally about there environment." This would be the starting point for the society so if a new society of humans were born tomorrow in this society then they would grow up and develop into "empirically rational minded, meaning that they are taught to thought based upon the morals depicted to them which would allow for them to do whatever they wanted without harming anyone else. At this stage in hypotheticals, the best evidence that I can give for such a society to work would be that of a company like a google except instead of making people work they would instead be able to relax, do whatever they wanted and to eat and sleep whenever they wanted. However, if you have anyone who would eat or sleep work for you that always slept and always did not work then they would be detrimental to the society. Also, there will be others who would want to work there but there is a position being taken up by someone who does not care to work there but is getting paid a lot so they stay there.

By letting those members of your family inside of the society you could risk having those individuals who would otherwise fail the "morality exam" kill anyone and everyone. Just because they are your family does not mean that they will not want to harm others. You might believe that they are nice, kind and innocent however they may be someone who would kill others when they are sleeping. Your family would be protected but other families in this society would not be. The morality exam would be created by everyone within that society so that those entering that society would know who they would like to let in to become apart of that society. It would be unwise to let someone in who would simply start collecting resources in order to eventually cause mass hysteria and rioting and murder. Please note that the morality exam would not be a static examination. Calling it an exam is like calling bread a "meat carrier." It would be constantly changing in order to fit the needs of the individuals of this society so that they would select who would be apart of this society. There is no one person who decides whether or not people are allowed in or not. 

We take morality exams every day, they're just not in written form. It's called life in a society. As @Ten oz and I elaborated in our previous posts, what makes us feel secure is relative, and there is also a personal moral relativism (not to be confused with moral relativism as a standalone concept). A free society has a greater bandwidth of morally acceptable behavior than a less free one, and I would spuriously claim at this point that this is a bijective relationship. From what you write it seems to me that your idea of Utopia is one of a moral quality, with a high standard for its citizens, but also a very narrow bandwidth of acceptable behavior. My idea of Utopia is one of a large bandwidth of acceptable behavior, limited only by the criterium of doing no harm by design of intention (which means to me that if someone explicitly asks to be harmed and someone is willing to oblige, there is no foul)

[ALine]

6 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

We take morality exams every day, they're just not in written form. It's called life in a society. As @Ten oz and I elaborated in our previous posts, what makes us feel secure is relative, and there is also a personal moral relativism (not to be confused with moral relativism as a standalone concept). A free society has a greater bandwidth of morally acceptable behavior than a less free one, and I would spuriously claim at this point that this is a bijective relationship. From what you write it seems to me that your idea of Utopia is one of a moral quality, with a high standard for its citizens, but also a very narrow bandwidth of acceptable behavior. My idea of Utopia is one of a large bandwidth of acceptable behavior, limited only by the criterium of doing no harm by design of intention (which means to me that if someone explicitly asks to be harmed and someone is willing to oblige, there is no foul)

Thank you for the response YaDinghus,

This society would be designed so that the individual right of a person of this society would be preserved. The only difference is that they are taught from a very young age to think critically, think creatively, share openly, and to have respect for all other individuals of the society. The society would only be teaching them to "do whatever you want as long as you do not go against the liberties of other individuals within that society." It would be like a child who is free to do whatever they wanted, be it becoming an artist or an inventor or anything that there heart desires. But the only rules are that you must respect the decisions and ideas of others and you must respect the ideas and decisions of yourself. No ideas would be forced for these children to have whereas they are taught to freely question and imagine anything that they wish to imagine and create. So if a child grows up to have a want to harm another individual and another individual obligates that request then the child is free to harm the other individual for respect for both his wishes and the wishes of the other individual. This would occur, however after the individual has sought or obtained all of the medical and psychological attention that has been made available to him at the time. So if he is still suicidal after every attempt has been made to help him with his life and nothing is working then the other individual has the option of terminating this individuals life. However, if the man who wishes to harm other individuals and does so without there consent or knowledge out of rage or emotional distress then he would not be allowed within the society. He can only do it with the full consent of another individual. He cannot bribe them, or try to persuade them, or create propaganda to attempt to change the minds of individuals who do not want to commit suicide. This would be going again the respect of others. 

Also this "morality examination" would be used to prevent individuals from outside of the society from coming into the society in order to try and cause them to prevent the society from being free. So say if someone where to come into this society without any means of determining if he will kill everyone within that society and he just wants to kill everyone and he cannot be dis-swayed to do so because of his previous religious beliefs then he would simply just get resources, make guns, and will proceed to murder everyone within the society without upholding the respect of the individuals within that society. 

If you are an adult and you have children who want to become apart of this society and you are swayed by rational argument then the most likely outcome is that your children would listen to you as a role model or hero figure and you would have taught them to also think rationally based upon empirical evidence. I am sorry for not clarifying this earlier. I am making this up as I go along. So both the adults and children would be allowed within the society. The parents would just need to know that they would be entering a new society where they are free to pursue anything that they wish to pursue as long as it does not go again the rights of another individual and a child who enters this society will be given all the means of growing up within the society in order to determine what problems they were dealing with in the past in order to help them through there problems. It would be a package deal with your immediate family. As long as the adults or inspirers within that family have proven that they can be swayed by rational argument then everyone of that family is welcome in. However this would mean that the adults would need to be able to be swayed by questioning everything that they ones believed because this would be a society who questions everything and nothing would be concrete except the building blocks of knowledge, creativity, and imagination that they would create. And even then those building blocks would be challenged constantly.

[ALine]

Everyone has a singular vote and for anything to pass through to become a rule or regulation everyone has to confirm or deny or create a new idea. So if the entire population of 1 billion votes yes and one person votes no or posses a secondary idea then the vote will not go through.

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, ALine said:

So if the entire population of 1 billion votes yes and one person votes no or posses a secondary idea then the vote will not go through.

So, your idea of utopia is a place where literally NOTHING will ever go through?

[ALine]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, your idea of utopia is a place where literally NOTHING will ever go through?

The idea is that in order for a new rule or regulation to be added to the main constitution then everyone needs to be in agreement for it. This is the reason for all of the examinations beforehand. Because you would want only individuals who are swayed by only rational empirical evidence instead of personal belief systems which are not based in reality to vote in order to make a society that they all would adhere to. Also, this process would take a long time yes, however it is not simply about voting "yes or no" on an idea. It is about making the idea available, having everyone come up with there own rationalities for why something should go through and then decide on there own to determine if it is in the best interest for the society. They also have to rationalize there vote onto why they made it so that everything is based upon reality and facts. So for example, if you were apart of this society and someone posed the idea to "kill everyone and end everything in a fiery hailstorm of fire and brimstone." You would want to know that your singular voice out of the masses is being considered and if you decide "hey I do not like that idea, let me pose a different solution" then you can. The system is designed to make you as an individual of that society less lazy or dependent upon others for making decisions for you. 

Also the longer the society goes the more streamlined the process will become so, in the beginning, it would take say a 4-5 year to make a single vote, it will take 4-5 minutes for future generations. What is the rush to make changes to the constitution? If the basic rules are extremely grounded in reality and every idea no matter who it comes from is continuously tested into the ring then it would be equivalent to someone creating a scientific paper and having peer-reviewed by everyone in the society. It would not be good if something that is not proven by experimentation to be accepted as being absolute truth. This gives everyone a voice and gives everyone a chance to challenge it.

Also, what do you mean by "going through" iNow?

[dimreepr]

On 6/30/2018 at 6:59 PM, Ten oz said:

Those far I have restricted my view of UBI to its ability to create a Utopian society considering that is what this thread is about.

 

UBI is the minimum requirement for any society that aspires to an ideal/utopia. 

Quote

My points have been about UBI's inability to change behavior or create happiness.

 

My points have suggested a starving person, with no home, once sated and sheltered is more likely to go to sleep than pick a fight.

Quote

Arguments about UBI's viability as a public well being and social safety net system in general are not what this thread is about.

We both know utopia is an impossible dream because we can't please all the people all the time, but we can enable all the people to have a full belly and a dry bed in which to contemplate safety/pleasure.

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

UBI is the minimum requirement for any society that aspires to an ideal/utopia. 

My points have suggested a starving person, with no home, once sated and sheltered is more likely to go to sleep than pick a fight.

We both know utopia is an impossible dream because we can't please all the people all the time, but we can enable all the people to have a full belly and a dry bed in which to contemplate safety/pleasure.

I created a separate thread for BUI. If you get caught up on what @ALine has outlined you'll see their vision is specific (untenable IMHO) and unrelated to BUI. 

[ALine]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I created a separate thread for BUI. If you get caught up on what @ALine has outlined you'll see their vision is specific (untenable IMHO) and unrelated to BUI. 

Please clarify what you mean by untenable?

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, ALine said:

Please clarify what you mean by untenable?

As we have being discussing I think the potential of having family separated would create for to much dissension for the society to function. Having ones family (spouse, children, parents, etc) with them is often more important to people than anything else. 

[ALine]

Just now, Ten oz said:

As we have being discussing I think the potential of having family separated would create for to much dissension for the society to function. Having ones family (spouse, children, parents, etc) with them is often more important to people than anything else.

Yes, and I believe that I have addressed this issue, that being the separation of families as you can see below.

On 7/1/2018 at 3:44 PM, ALine said:

If you are an adult and you have children who want to become apart of this society and you are swayed by rational argument then the most likely outcome is that your children would listen to you as a role model or hero figure and you would have taught them to also think rationally based upon empirical evidence. I am sorry for not clarifying this earlier. I am making this up as I go along. So both the adults and children would be allowed within the society. The parents would just need to know that they would be entering a new society where they are free to pursue anything that they wish to pursue as long as it does not go again the rights of another individual and a child who enters this society will be given all the means of growing up within the society in order to determine what problems they were dealing with in the past in order to help them through there problems. It would be a package deal with your immediate family. As long as the adults or inspirers within that family have proven that they can be swayed by rational argument then everyone of that family is welcome in. However this would mean that the adults would need to be able to be swayed by questioning everything that they ones believed because this would be a society who questions everything and nothing would be concrete except the building blocks of knowledge, creativity, and imagination that they would create. And even then those building blocks would be challenged constantly.

Families would be allowed to stay together. This is due to the adults having an influence on the children. So if the adults pass the test then their children can go as well. It is an all or nothing deal. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, ALine said:

Families would be allowed to stay together. This is due to the adults having an influence on the children. So if the adults pass the test then their children can go as well. It is an all or nothing deal. 

 

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If you get caught up on what @ALine has outlined you'll see their vision is specific (untenable IMHO) and unrelated to BUI. 

 

I'm sorry, Ten, to drag you and UBI back into this thread but it's a genuine argument, given "It is an all or nothing deal."

[ALine]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sorry, Ten, to drag you and UBI back into this thread but it's a genuine argument, given "It is an all or nothing deal."

I believe that because this is only a philosophical analysis then bringing in UBI in this would defeat the purpose of this only being hypothetical. UBI would be a concrete idea which may or may not work; however, if you utilize such a concrete idea into a hypothetical idea which fluidly grows then you would be constricting the idea into a definable "has to be like this." I do not have a problem with UBI, but I feel that it in itself should be questioned in order to add to a philosophical discussion such as this.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, ALine said:

I believe that because this is only a philosophical analysis then bringing in UBI in this would defeat the purpose of this only being hypothetical.

It may not be your question, but it is a question.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It may not be your question, but it is a question.

That is why I started a thread specifically for BUI. I am not dismissing your point. I just don't want to hijack this thread.

@ALine's version of Utopia seems to focus on a crime free society were human intelligence can be increased. I don't believe either can be achieved through purposeful human action. Those goals (crime free society and increased intelligence) aren't stated goals of BUI. 

[ALine]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

@ALine's version of Utopia seems to focus on a crime free society were human intelligence can be increased. I don't believe either can be achieved through purposeful human action. Those goals (crime free society and increased intelligence) aren't stated goals of BUI. 

2

If this were true then why is it that we have research institutions or a legal system? A purposeful human action is dependent upon the morals and thoughts of individuals within a society. So if there were no incentive toward intelligence gaining or moral laws then we would not have them.

We probably would not have gotten to where we are now if it were not for purposeful human action for these specific fields.

[Ten oz]

@ALine the acquisition of knowledge knowledge is not equal to increased individual intelligence.  If that were true humans today would be more inherently intelligent than humans were 500yrs ago and we are not. As for the legal system it exists as a mean to enforce safety standards. It is not designed to ensure no one ever will commit a crime. It is understood people will commit crimes which is why we have Law Enforcement officials, courts, and prisons.   

Edited July 3, 2018 by Ten oz

[Bender]

5 hours ago, ALine said:

Yes, and I believe that I have addressed this issue, that being the separation of families as you can see below.

Families would be allowed to stay together. This is due to the adults having an influence on the children. So if the adults pass the test then their children can go as well. It is an all or nothing deal. 

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

What if a child decides to rebel against their indoctrinated parents/the hive mind? Does it get kicked out. Why would the perfectly rational parents even care about their imperfect children being kicked out?

[Ken Fabian]

Absence of poverty does look like a key element of any quest for utopia but I have long thought independent courts and Common Law type systems have been important to the success of modern "western" nation states. As messy and subject to corruption these often are in practice they do there does seem to be a self-correcting, corruption resisting element in them and they don't get as messy and corrupt as nations that do not have them.  If their partial success makes such a difference, maybe better legal systems are going to be a key ingredient for a healthier society.

Just as access to basic living needs would need to be universal, I suggest affordable access to not-corrupt courts, justice and legal redress would also need to be universal.

[ALine]

7 hours ago, Bender said:

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

What if a child decides to rebel against their indoctrinated parents/the hive mind? Does it get kicked out. Why would the perfectly rational parents even care about their imperfect children being kicked out?

 

[Bender]

5 minutes ago, ALine said:

 

So you agree that you Utopia is a horrible place?

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Absence of poverty does look like a key element of any quest for utopia but I have long thought independent courts and Common Law type systems have been important to the success of modern "western" nation states. As messy and subject to corruption these often are in practice they do there does seem to be a self-correcting, corruption resisting element in them and they don't get as messy and corrupt as nations that do not have them.  If their partial success makes such a difference, maybe better legal systems are going to be a key ingredient for a healthier society.

Just as access to basic living needs would need to be universal, I suggest affordable access to not-corrupt courts, justice and legal redress would also need to be universal.

 Yes, and our justice system can still use improvement. We should stop training criminals and terrorists in prisons.

 

[ALine]

But no, let's be honest here Bender.

1. Thinking for one's self and rationalizing everything around them is no "indoctrination." Based upon your given definition then that would mean that all of science is just a form of religion that has no basis or meaning in reality. So why even come here to talk about science or logical debate or rationality if you are going to say that the same rationality you are using is irrational. 

2. Ok, so I am assuming that you are a perfectly rational person who may or may not have a child. What would you do if you have passed the rationality examination, which based upon your responses you would have most likely have done so? I am assuming that you would leave your kid outside of a new world just because he did not want to? NO, He is a child, not an adult. He cannot make fully rationalized decisions yet. If he is a rebellious child then treat him as a rebellious child and tell him to "come on." 

(3) The percentage of the human population which is a sociopath is literally so small, around 3% and 1% for psychopaths,  I am pretty sure we will not see one anytime soon. And when we do see one then our technology would be so advanced then it would be able to detect one. And if it cannot then we will focus our research on detecting them. Also because data is constantly being obtained how would they be able to kill anyone? If they ever come outside with a gun and are headed to an apartment or residential area, by the way, it would not really matter because we could just stop the gun from firing, then we would know when he was coming and just divert him from trying to kill someone.

 

Also if a child rebels then let a child rebel, he will just need to wait until he gets old enough to make a change to the system. Why are we automatically assuming that freedom of speech is instantly out the window? Naw man, all he would have to do is simply wait for when he is an adult and if he still finds problems all he would need to do is rationalize what is wrong with the system, and yes emotions and morality would be taken into account; this system is built on the very foundations of morality. If a large number of people agree with him then it gets added or removed from the rules and regulations. If someone who is old has a problem then they can make an argument against it. The system is designed so that EVERYONE has the potential and actual ability to change rules and regulations at any time no matter who they are. That process just takes a very long time because it is designed to make everyone THINK together as a collective versus everything thinking by themselves.

Also, no one would have access to your personal data except for you. So if you have sex with someone and someone else is trying to look at you have sex with someone else then that person watching is in the wrong, unless he receives permission to do so.

36 minutes ago, Bender said:

So you agree that you Utopia is a horrible place?

Nope, better there than here where you can get your life ruined by looking at a woman the wrong way or can die of literal starvation while people walk past you like it is nothing. Or you can get raped in jails by people twice your size for no reason other than saying something impolitely. I mean come on, I would rather spend my time doing what it was that I wanted to do while being watched vs Being constantly in fear of everything around me while not being watched. I would want to know that my child was safe going to and from school without having to worry about some rapist trying to pick them up. I would want to leave my door unlocked at night without having to worry about being robbed.

Why live in a system that if you stop working for only a single day you could possibly die. Sure everyone has a different story, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of the world would agree with me.

36 minutes ago, Bender said:

Yes, and our justice system can still use improvement. We should stop training criminals and terrorists in prisons.

Yep, you are right but why not start training them at birth to think for themselves that it is not ok to kill someone and to treat everyone with respect. Why let it get to that point where they already are in prisons. Besides that is not going to solve the problem. In prison's, you are combining people who are not normal and would murder people vs. people who are normal and would not kill anyone. What do you think is going to happen if there are "weak" people vs "strong" people? The weak ones are going to get raped, killed, murdered and made an example of. So the only thing the weak people can do is to become strong. So they become strong, but because they have been like that for such a long time then it does not matter once they get out because you have just created a murderer. In your quest to become such a "free" society you have stripped away what it means to be free. No amount of training will change and or fix that and just say that it will is just purely irrational, to say the least. This is simply because it would not be grounded in reality.

 

 

This entire society is simply asking the question, " would you kill your own family" would you rape your own family member? Everyone in this society would be considered a family would try to rationalize and reason everything in order to prevent conflict. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by ALine
Needed to change out an image

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, ALine said:

But no, let's be honest here Bender.

1. Thinking for one's self and rationalizing everything around them is no "indoctrination." Based upon your given definition then that would mean that all of science is just a form of religion that has no basis or meaning in reality. So why even come here to talk about science or logical debate or rationality if you are going to say that the same rationality you are using is irrational. 

2. Ok, so I am assuming that you are a perfectly rational person who may or may not have a child. What would you do if you have passed the rationality examination, which based upon your responses you would have most likely have done so? I am assuming that you would leave your kid outside of a new world just because he did not want to? NO, He is a child, not an adult. He cannot make fully rationalized decisions yet. If he is a rebellious child then treat him as a rebellious child and tell him to "come on." 

(3) The percentage of the human population which is a sociopath is literally so small, around 3% and 1% for psychopaths,  I am pretty sure we will not see one anytime soon. And when we do see one then our technology would be so advanced then it would be able to detect one. And if it cannot then we will focus our research on detecting them. Also because data is constantly being obtained how would they be able to kill anyone? If they ever come outside with a gun and are headed to an apartment or residential area, by the way, it would not really matter because we could just stop the gun from firing, then we would know when he was coming and just divert him from trying to kill someone.

 

Also if a child rebels then let a child rebel, he will just need to wait until he gets old enough to make a change to the system. Why are we automatically assuming that freedom of speech is instantly out the window? Naw man, all he would have to do is simply wait for when he is an adult and if he still finds problems all he would need to do is rationalize what is wrong with the system, and yes emotions and morality would be taken into account; this system is built on the very foundations of morality. If a large number of people agree with him then it gets added or removed from the rules and regulations. If someone who is old has a problem then they can make an argument against it. The system is designed so that EVERYONE has the potential and actual ability to change rules and regulations at any time no matter who they are. That process just takes a very long time because it is designed to make everyone THINK together as a collective versus everything thinking by themselves.

Also, no one would have access to your personal data except for you. So if you have sex with someone and someone else is trying to look at you have sex with someone else then that person watching is in the wrong, unless he receives permission to do so.

Nope, better there than here where you can get your life ruined by looking at a woman the wrong way or can die of literal starvation while people walk past you like it is nothing. Or you can get raped in jails by people twice your size for no reason other than saying something impolitely. I mean come on, I would rather spend my time doing what it was that I wanted to do while being watched vs Being constantly in fear of everything around me while not being watched. I would want to know that my child was safe going to and from school without having to worry about some rapist trying to pick them up. I would want to leave my door unlocked at night without having to worry about being robbed.

Why live in a system that if you stop working for only a single day you could possibly die. Sure everyone has a different story, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of the world would agree with me.

Yep, you are right but why not start training them at birth to think for themselves that it is not ok to kill someone and to treat everyone with respect. Why let it get to that point where they already are in prisons. Besides that is not going to solve the problem. In prison's, you are combining people who are not normal and would murder people vs. people who are normal and would not kill anyone. What do you think is going to happen if there are "weak" people vs "strong" people? The weak ones are going to get raped, killed, murdered and made an example of. So the only thing the weak people can do is to become strong. So they become strong, but because they have been like that for such a long time then it does not matter once they get out because you have just created a murderer. In your quest to become such a "free" society you have stripped away what it means to be free. No amount of training will change and or fix that and just say that it will is just purely irrational, to say the least. This is simply because it would not be grounded in reality.

 

 

This entire society is simply asking the question, " would you kill your own family" would you rape your own family member? Everyone in this society would be considered a family would try to rationalize and reason everything in order to prevent conflict. 

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Quote

The word comes from Greek: οὐ ("not") and τόπος ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society.^[5] Eutopia, derived from Greek εὖ ("good" or "well") and τόπος ("place"), means "good place", and is strictly speaking the correct term to describe a positive utopia.

The only thing you have correct in your version is the spelling (no-place), eutopia may even have existed (I think probably).

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Thinking for one's self and rationalizing everything around them is no "indoctrination."

That very much depends on how one is taught and one's level of comprehension.

Edit/ quoted from the wrong text this' an ALine quote.

7 hours ago, ALine said:

if he still finds problems all he would need to do is rationalize what is wrong with the system, and yes emotions and morality would be taken into account

What if the problem is, it doesn't feel right?

Edited July 4, 2018 by dimreepr

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Just as access to basic living needs would need to be universal, I suggest affordable access to not-corrupt courts, justice and legal redress would also need to be universal.

I concur, it may not be perfect but the combination seems our best chance.