Abolition of death penalty: is it utopian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brgregmack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
—Abolition of all criminal punishment?

—Abolition of poverty (given that our LORD said the poor would always be around)?

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the world after the second coming of Christ constitute a utopia?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Those statements seem to be contradictory. Which is correct?
Click to expand...
The world after the resurrection will be a perfect one. The condemnation of all forms of utopianism is a condemnation of all views, goals, and philosophies which ignore our fallen nature and our need for God.
 
GEddie said:
Well, generally understood, ever since the term was coined by S. Thomas More as the name of an imaginary island.
Click to expand...
I would contend that “Manifest Destiny” had elements of utopianism, and it was wildly popular in the 1800s. There are and have been other popular ideas/moods that seem to claim we can create a utopia, such as the idea of a technological singularity and the hippie communes.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
I would contend that “Manifest Destiny” had elements of utopianism, and it was wildly popular in the 1800s. There are and have been other popular ideas/moods that seem to claim we can create a utopia, such as the idea of a technological singularity and the hippie communes.
Click to expand...
The hippie communes have passed from the scene, their ideals unrealized; and the singularity has not yet been disproven, but it will be.
 
brgregmack said:
The world after the resurrection will be a perfect one. The condemnation of all forms of utopianism is a condemnation of all views, goals, and philosophies which ignore our fallen nature and our need for God.
Click to expand...
So a utopia which did not ignore our fallen nature and our need for God would be unobjectionable to the Church?
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
So a utopia which did not ignore our fallen nature and our need for God would be unobjectionable to the Church?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure there is such a philosophy… if I understand your question correctly. The root of all utopianism is trying to create a perfect world this side of the resurrection, even if one such philosophy existed that acknowledged God and our need for him, at least on the surface level.
 
brgregmack said:
I’m not sure there is such a philosophy… if I understand your question correctly. The root of all utopianism is trying to create a perfect world this side of the resurrection, even if one such philosophy existed that acknowledged God and our need for him, at least on the surface level.
Click to expand...
Let me take elimination of poverty as an example of a utopian idea. Does the church not teach that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and tend to the sick? It does, and for the church to oppose attempts to eliminate poverty on a wide scale as “utopian” is for them to say “you should help the poor, but you shouldn’t do too good of a job.” Would the church make such a claim? I don’t think so.

Now we could repeat this process with any number of utopian ideas, even ones whose underpinnings the church finds to be morally neutral. However, when we take all the individual ideas and put them together into a utopia, the church opposes it. I think the only reason for this is because the original formulations of the term “utopia” had a specific treatment of religion which the church did not like, but the term has broadened since the 16th century and I don’t think the church really does issue a blanket condemnation of these utopian ideas.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Let me take elimination of poverty as an example of a utopian idea. Does the church not teach that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and tend to the sick? It does, and for the church to oppose attempts to eliminate poverty on a wide scale as “utopian” is for them to say “you should help the poor, but you shouldn’t do too good of a job.” Would the church make such a claim? I don’t think so.

Now we could repeat this process with any number of utopian ideas, even ones whose underpinnings the church finds to be morally neutral. However, when we take all the individual ideas and put them together into a utopia, the church opposes it. I think the only reason for this is because the original formulations of the term “utopia” had a specific treatment of religion which the church did not like, but the term has broadened since the 16th century and I don’t think the church really does issue a blanket condemnation of these utopian ideas.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you quite understand. We absolutely should work to alleviate poverty and provide for those in need. But it isn’t enough to provide for material needs, we need to bring them Christ. It’s utopian to work for a world where there is no more suffering, for people will suffer until after the consummation of history. What’s important is that we do the best we can and realize that people need to be shown the love of Christ more than just providing for their material needs.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Let me take elimination of poverty as an example of a utopian idea. Does the church not teach that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and tend to the sick? It does, and for the church to oppose attempts to eliminate poverty on a wide scale as “utopian” is for them to say “you should help the poor, but you shouldn’t do too good of a job.” Would the church make such a claim? I don’t think so.

Now we could repeat this process with any number of utopian ideas, even ones whose underpinnings the church finds to be morally neutral. However, when we take all the individual ideas and put them together into a utopia, the church opposes it. I think the only reason for this is because the original formulations of the term “utopia” had a specific treatment of religion which the church did not like, but the term has broadened since the 16th century and I don’t think the church really does issue a blanket condemnation of these utopian ideas.
Click to expand...
No, the church would say, “Do all you can to alleviate poverty ; but understand that however well you succeed, you cannot eliminate it, because sinful human conditions will always produce it”. It also follows that draconian social changes. (ie, communism) that have as a goal the elimination of poverty will be opposed, because the goal is unachievable and the societal cost is too high.

The OP claims that ending the DP is utopian not because that is unachievable but because society cannot be maintained without it (unrealistic). I disagree with him, but a society without DP is not, as such, Utopia.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
The OP claims that ending the DP is utopian not because that is unachievable but because society cannot be maintained without it (unrealistic). I disagree with him, but a society without DP is not, as such, Utopia.
Click to expand...
Again, a slight clarification and a succinct restatement. You are correct in surmising that a society without DP is not a Utopia. I also don’t think that society can’t be maintained without it. Rather, I feel that it should be kept on paper as a matter of prudence. At the same time, I feel that it should be rendered nearly impossible to use. I think pragmatic dialogue working in this direction would prove quicker in the end rather than a stonewalling temper-tantrum demanding it’s end.
 
GEddie said:
No, the church would say, “Do all you can to alleviate poverty ; but understand that however well you succeed, you cannot eliminate it, because sinful human conditions will always produce it”.
Click to expand...
Would you renounce Catholicism if poverty were successfully eliminated? Of course not, whether or not we are able to eliminate poverty is not a religious question. Therefore, arguments about its possibility should not be based on religion.
GEddie said:
It also follows that draconian social changes. (ie, communism) that have as a goal the elimination of poverty will be opposed, because the goal is unachievable and the societal cost is too high.
Click to expand...
Why would social changes have to be draconian? What exactly would be the social cost? I can tell you what the social benefit would be: there would be no more poverty. You seem to be saying “We can’t eliminate poverty because people don’t believe it can be done and therefore will resist eliminating poverty.” That’s fine, but what people believe can change quite rapidly, I see no reason people couldn’t be convinced of the possibility.
 
Since our LORD said we would always have the poor around; it follows that we as non-divine human beings cannot cure poverty. I’ll take HIS word over that of social reformers.
 
GEddie said:
Since our LORD said we would always have the poor around; it follows that we as non-divine human beings cannot cure poverty. I’ll take HIS word over that of social reformers.
Click to expand...
So if we did cure poverty you would give up Christianity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top