Does Utopia justify the means?

I've seen several fictions, usually speculative, that feature antagonists that plan to slaughter bunch of people to achieve whatever is the closest equivalent of utopida in that setting. It always came up as a cheap excuse to give the antagonist motives.

I've thought about those kind of characters action and thought, "I don't want an utopia created by someone who views human lives as a means rather as an end."

Is my opinion valid to some degree or am I just hopelessly idealistic?

EDIT: Thanks GOD, those duplicated threads are gone! Thanks, mods (although the chances are it's probably just Camacan)!

edited 7th Aug '11 11:29:04 PM by dRoy

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

People who seriously think they have a plan that will actually result in a utopia are even more hopelessly idealistic.

People who seriously think a utopia is achievable are even more hopelessly idealistic.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

Of course utopia justifies the means. By creating an actual, self-sustaining utopia you're creating great happiness that extends indefinitely into the future. The integral of all happiness from here to infinity outweighs any finite amount of suffering you could possibly cause, no matter how much you tip the scales. The problems tends to be with the utopian idealist not thinking long-term enough.

edited 7th Aug '11 11:56:14 PM by Clarste

In theory, a sufficiently good Utopia does justify the means, as long as the Utopia does indeed happen, and as long as that Utopia wouldn't have been available through other means.

The problem is that humans are biased towards rationalizing power-grabbing - they will come up with justifications for why it's a good idea to give them plenty of power over their fellow men, and "I'll create Utopia" is a common form of such justifications. So itt's useful to have a general policy of being very suspicious of people claiming that their bloody means are justified by Noble Ends.

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

@OP: Sure, Why Not??

hashtagsarestupid

What about the families who saw their loved ones horribly tortured to death to produce this utopia? Or the people you think might have heard their story and believed it? How do you deal with these people within your utopia?

If it's a true utopia, they'll be happy with the state of things anyway and it's a non-issue. The won't necessarily stop missing their loved ones, but if things are literally the best they could be, they may bitch-moan about how you got there, but going back to the old ways won't bring their loved ones back- they'll have just suffered for nothing.

edited 8th Aug '11 2:47:14 AM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

And the people who hear them bemoaning the suffering? Or does this utopia require drug treatment to remove empathy?

In a genuine Utopia, this would be a non-issue. Which is one reason why utopias are impossible, so long as there is any sort of diversity in thought - utopia does mean ''no place", after all.

Utopia is an ideal, not something that is actually possible to create. Anyone who says that their actions are justified because they have made a utopia is deluding themselves, because they haven't. They may have potentially made a better world, but it cannot possibly be a perfect one.

Realistically, that's a seperate moral debate: Was this change worth what it cost? And that varies from situation to situation.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

Let's examine the question from another perspective: Is it justifiable to kill someone if it will result in a better life for someone else? Keep in mind that the only "crime" that this person has committed is existing.

Or heck, make it a million people. Or even make it everyone who will ever exist hereafter. Are you then justified in killing a completely innocent person? The answer for anyone with a sane moral code must be no. It is never justifiable to kill the innocent, however much benefit can be derived from it. Whether you will do it anyway is up to you, but you cannot call such an action just.

edited 8th Aug '11 4:08:36 AM by Jauce

Only if the maker considers himself unfit to live in that Utopia.

edited 8th Aug '11 4:11:45 AM by Izaak

Yes, this is more on the line of "Is it justifiable to sacrifice few to save many." My answer is no, no matter what.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

What if someone was trying to stop a dystopia, then would their actions be justified?

edited 8th Aug '11 4:43:18 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

How illogical.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

It depends on the utopia, and it depends on the means.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

No. No, as in, no-way-no-matter-what-and-just-no-so-stop-talking-okay-and-don't try-making-any-loophole-or-anything-just-no-no-and no-freaking-no no.

Genius observation. Logical part of me would ALWAYS remark that it is in fact illogical, but my more...sentimental side would never take it and unfortunately, my sentimental side is just a bit stronger than logical side so yeah, no sacrifice, period.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

No, because:

1. Utopia is impossible (a system where things are better, but not perfect, is not utopia)
2. The mean is as important as the end
3. Probable failure, which can have enourmous cost (is this related to sunk-cost fallacy?)

@joeyjojo: Still depends on the means...although if the situation is so shitty that doing bad things will probably not making it worse, therefore eliminate my 3rd point, then, well...still, pulling from dystopia directly to utopia is still impossible...change is way too drastic...

edited 8th Aug '11 5:45:31 AM by onyhow

Give me cute or give me...something?

"Utopia is impossible" doesn't tell us whether a hypothetical utopia would justify hypothetical means, it just tells us that such a scenario is unlikely.

Do you have any particular reason to believe that Utopia is impossible? If you described our current life (modern western middle class - heat, water and light everywhere, nobody worries about running out of food, a lot of leisure and entertainement, work is not very tiring) to an european serf back in the days of the black death or barbarian invasions, they may as well disbelieve you saying "Utopia is impossibl".

"Probable failure" is another cheap way out - the more probable the failure, the less it's justified. But it's at least conceivale that there's an Utopia sufficiently good, and sufficiently certain that it might be justified to (warning: Squick!)torture a ten-year-old girl to death to get there, if it's the only way.

Yes, such a scenario is exceedingly unlikely, and yes, even if we think we're facing such a scenario, it might be worth not acting anyway because of the chance we might be mistaken. But if it's really the case, then it would be justified.

edited 8th Aug '11 6:12:19 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

^ It's accounting for human nature, and I'm trying to account of actually creating utopia in real life...blame my obsession with trying to create a plausible real-life situation for several fantastical concepts...also I DID say that better systems, but not perfect (our life now is much better than the past, but still have a big share of problems) is not utopia...since by definition utopia must be absolutely perfect...also, you didn't really try to go for my second point...why?

edited 8th Aug '11 6:25:59 AM by onyhow

Give me cute or give me...something?

I got an entire plot out of this and the reasons I'm about to give. It was fun!

No:

• Some things aren't worth utopia.
• Utopia is subjective and relative. One man's (Savage Heathen, say) utopia is another man's (mine) dystopia. What right does one man—or even a small group of people, relative to the world—have to force their version—and only theirs—of utopia on us all? Is theirs somehow better? Can they prove it? And even if it is better, in a practical sense, is the ideology behind it "better" than another person's? Can they prove that?

I am now known as Flyboy.

I don't disagree with the second point as much - I think the rightness of an action should mostly depend on it's (direct and indirect) consequences (or more precisely, positive/negative judgements should be made so as to overall increase good consequences ... things can get complicated). The "means" (killing innocents) counts as part of those consequences as much as the "ends" (creating Utopia).

I understand Utopia as meaning maybe not absolutely perfect, but still way way better than what we have now ... in a way I'm rephrasing the original question as "Are there conceivable states of existence for humanity such that reaching them would justify horrid acts of torture?" (the redifinition is mostly to avoid boring quibbling over the meaning of "Utopia" and "perfection"), and my answer is "Yes".

If it's only what one person would call "Utopia", then it may not be good enough to justify horrid acts. So as a rule of thumb, it's better not to copmmit horrid acts to reach "Utopia", because you might be wrong abot whether it's really good enough, whether it will succeed, etc.

edited 8th Aug '11 7:51:16 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

I hate myself for it, but I'm going to have to say yes too.

edited 8th Aug '11 7:47:35 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Some would argue that global extinction would result in a utopia. No misery, no suffering, no hardship, no loud music...

These are just assertions. Can you actually back them up with a rational argument?