I'm moving to Utopia!

If I was alive in 1516 when Utopia was written, and I knew this place described in Book II of More’s Utopia existed, I would go live there. Today it would be very difficult to give some of my possessions and technology, but I would still consider moving to Utopia. I liked their daily lifestyles and the rules they had in place. For example, I really liked that they only had to work for six hours a day and the rest of the time was for recreation and sleep. I also appreciated how they had their housing set up. I thought the idea of having a beautiful garden at the center of every block was great. We keep on building new developments and skyscrapers, and I think we have lost a lot of nature’s beauty because of it. Another lifestyle rule that they had is that everyone basically wears the same clothes. Even though I love being able to pick my own clothes, I think that making everyone where the same clothes is a smart idea. It creates a sense of equality among everyone, and people can’t judge you based on your clothes.

I also agree with a lot of their moral beliefs. The two ideas that stuck me the most was their beliefs on how you should treat people and what true pleasure is. On page 61, it says, “as long as they [the laws] are observed, to pursue your own interest is prudent; to pursue the public interest is pious; but to pursue your own pleasure by depriving others of theirs is unjust. On the other hand, deliberately to decrease one’s own pleasure in order to augment that of others is a work of humanity and benevolence which never fails to reward the doer over and above his sacrifice.” This passage really stood out to me, because was taught the same beliefs when I was growing up. It is good to do the right thing for yourself and follow the rules; it is bad to take from others for your own benefit. But when you give up what you have to help others, you are truly doing something good. The other idea that I really liked is that the people in Utopia didn't find pleasure in objects, and that just because you had a lot of stuff did not mean that you should be honored. I think this is a lesson that we have a hard time learning today. We place so much value on material objects and we idolize the rich and famous, but in the end does any of those things and those people really matter? I personally don’t think so, but I still find it hard to give up my phone, iPad and laptop and watching reality television.

Speaking of pleasure, I thought their definition of it was interesting. They believe the type of pleasure that goes beyond the surface of basic needs is based on having stable health. I never really thought of pleasure in that sense; however, it does make sense. Maybe it is just because I think I am about to catch a cold, but I understand where the Utopians are coming from because I know that I am never happy whenever I am sick. I agree with their belief that you need stable health to find pleasure, but I am unsure of whether or not I think that the source of pleasure is stable health.

As you can probably tell I was a fan of this reading, but now I understand Amber’s enthusiasm for it, because it has been my favorite reading so far. J

St. Augustine's negativity

The main idea was to prove that the decline of the Roman Empire was not caused by the conversion to Christianity, and point out the difference between the earthly city and the heavenly city. However, at times I lost the main points of St. Augustine’s The City of God within the smaller messages in the chapters. But, I liked how the chapter titles gave a brief description of what the chapters were about. It helped me decipher some of the more complex ideas that were trying to be conveyed. Overall, I was surprised that I understood as much as I did, because I was slightly intimidated when Dr. MB said it was one of the hardest books she has ever read.

The chapter that I found most odd was Book XIX, Chapter 5. St. Augustine has a fairly negative perspective on human beings and their nature as whole, but this chapter stood out to me. The title is, “Social Life; its value and its dangers;” but the case for the values of social life were hardly

stated. I interpreted this chapter as St. Augustine saying, “You can’t trust anyone.” He was calling everybody out on their trustworthiness—family, friends, spouses. He says, “The story of mankind is full of them at every point; for in that story we are aware of wrongs, suspicions, enmities and war – undoubted evils, these. And even peace is a doubtful good.” Personally, I do not agree with him. I know that you will meet people in your life time that will betray your trust, but I have friends that I would trust with my life. These friends have always been there for me during good and bad times.

I found Book XIX, Chapter 6 interesting as well. While reading this chapter, I could not help comparing it to the motto of our current judicial system, “Innocent until proven guilty.” For even the most severe of crimes, everyone is entitled to certain rights and is not harmed prior to their ruling. From what St. Augustine was describing, it seems like their justice system’s motto is “Punish until someone admits to being guilty.” This leads to injustice because innocent people admit to committing crimes that they did not commit to end their suffering. In addition, there were no rules, regulations or processes that must be completed for a sentence to be given. It was all based on the judgment of the judge, who could possibly be ignorant and misinformed.

As St. Augustine is making his argument he has an air of confidence and supremacy. He is very sure of his beliefs and has no problem condemning others’ behavior. It is one thing to support and promote your belief and lifestyle, but in my opinion, he comes off as slightly arrogant. Does anyone else feel that way?

*Addition: After attending class today and having Dr. MB clarify St. Augustine's stance. I have a better understanding of where St. Augustine was coming from. I understand that he wasn't really trying to be pessimistic. He was trying to make the point that in the earthly city there are many vices, but in the heavenly city there is only Supreme Good.

Ending World Hunger

What is one thing you would do to make the world a better place?

As I clean off my plate before leaving the dining hall I see the trash cans full of unwanted food. Wasting food seems to have become a habit for those with access to an excessive amount of food. I am also guilty of this crime; however, that does not mean I should not want to change it. The distribution of food both within the United States and on a global scale is ridiculously uneven. On one end, there are people who purchase food in excess and toss it away when it becomes inedible or takes up too much space in the fridge; and on the other end, there are people who have to beg for food.

When the question was posed to the class, my first thought was what was something I personally could do to improve the world around me? I was reminded of the summer I spent volunteering in Chicago. I met a man named James, who I befriended when delivering food to the homeless. James and his two companions were members of the over 138,000 homeless living in Chicago (Chicago Coalition for the Homeless). They only received one meal a day from the nuns at the Missionaries of Charity, but the joy they expressed after receiving a simple lunch in a brown paper bag ingrained in me the importance of food in daily life. The food that was given away all came from donation, and I thought what if these small donations could be multiplied across the globe.  

The implementation of creating a more even distribution of food on a local scale is fairly simple. People who are financially able should be required to donate money or food to an organization that helps distribute food to the less fortunate. In addition, it should also be a requirement that people donate their time to volunteer at a local soup kitchen or help pass out food to the homeless and hungry, because it does not matter how much food or money is donated if there is no one there to distribute it.

On a global scale, the development of more advanced farming technology and the shipping of surplus goods could improve the distribution of food. The development of more advanced farming technology would create larger production of food, which could then be distributed to communities around the world. More advanced farming technology could also result in better farming methods that are less harmful to the land so that food could be produced for a longer period of time. In addition, we could ship food from countries that had an excess of food via air carriers or cargo ships to countries that needed more food.  

Food is an essential part of daily life, yet many people go without it. However, there are many people that have more than they can eat. After having experience working with the hungry, I was motivated to write about a solution to their hunger. The solution ranges from small donations to advancements in technology and global shipment of food. If we could end world hunger, imagine the possibilities of what the human race could achieve. 

"FAQ/Studies - Chicago Coalition for the Homeless." Chicago Coalition for the Homeless RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.