ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Different Interpretations Of A Perfect World

Updated on February 11, 2016

Utopia, a perfect world: For many the concept of a perfect world is mired in personal gain and their own ideals being actualized therein.

Many have preached and praised certain aspects of their own Utopian beliefs, of the concept that should their words be followed to the letter then it shall result in perfection; a world without suffering and strife.

For many, however, this perfect world is suited for their own specifications and not towards others. A mother's Utopia may be a world where her family prospers, a priest's Utopia may be one where his religious doctrine is believed and followed globally.

For a Christian the perfect world may be one where they prosper and every person spreads the word of Jesus, for an Atheist it may be a world where all answers are apparent and easy to access and accept.

Most probably, however, the perfect world of an individual would be just that: An individual belief.

Take, for example, someone with a belief in Christ and a belief in equality.

Their perfect world may be one with all people equal, one where all forms of marriage are accepted and all people are able to live comfortably and safely.

And yet, the bible disagrees with several of these practices. This, in turn, would create a moral quandary; their perfect world would be one wherein they may have to disagree with their own chosen deity.

An Atheistic person, on the other hand, may want a good world with answers ready and available, and people to be forced to accept the consequences of their actions, and yet without the concept of god a great many other morally bankrupt individuals with belief may not be so restrained, or a criminal may commit more crimes without the belief of an afterlife to tether them.

A Utopian society is impossible as every person's concept of a "perfect world" is different. Some disagree with homosexuality, others with transgender people or other beliefs.

This world, a Utopia to them, would be a world of suffering to others.

This brings forth the problem that without accountability a person inevitably brings forth danger and disappointment in others, and a utopia would be one without accountability.

Unfortunately in this modern age of high speed connectivity, easy access to a public platform and easy media access, a great many people have ideals and concepts that are in disagreement with others, believing that their way is the only one that can bring forth happiness for everyone.

This, in turn, causes a social disconnect that allows extreme elements and unsavory characters to spread their own opinions in anonymity and/or without having to face the consequences of their words.

Freedom of expression is, without doubt, one of the greatest things to come out of the modern day; a world where people can share knowledge, skills and access to resources without stepping foot outside of their homes.

Without having to personally interact with other people of differing beliefs, both social and religious, many obtain a radical stance or edge to their "perfect" ideals, thus offsetting the initial impact of their otherwise sound beliefs, and causing others to perhaps shift to their extreme perceptions or utilize such perceptions in their own unsavory goals.

An example of this is Feminism, wherein the claim is for equality between men and women. Such a belief would be perfectly sound, however many individuals utilize the concept of feminism to push for female superiority or lie about statistics or certain facts, thereby putting off several people that would otherwise be in agreement with such a stance.

This, in turn, results in fringe groups, either corrupting the initial beliefs or maintaining the initial beliefs as they change, much like Chinese whispers, slowly changing the primary message until it is distorted beyond recognition.

In addition other groups begin to form in response to outspoken messages being shared, focusing on specific points in the hopes that they will not be ignored or disregarded.

Examples of this include MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) focusing on men's rights, and Egalitarians refusing to be associated with either group, insisting, specifically, on equality between everyone.

Yet many feminists would say that even as egalitarian if you do not agree with feminist rhetoric that you are sexist, identifying MRAs as sexist in addition due to their focus on men's rights.

Such beliefs play a crucial role in the aspects of a perfect world, as without such outspoken words many would be ostracized; simultaneously, however, such beliefs also cause much suffering, subverting and denying other's opinions and lifestyles in favour of those that would benefit them.

Such hypocrisy causes rifts and dissent between such groups. It is because humanity shares such different concepts of equality and acceptability that a perfect Utopia would be impossible, such a concept inevitably resulting in a social breakdown and maybe even violence between the different groups.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Jack Aniseed profile image

      Jack Aniseed 2 years ago from London, England

      A single person's ideal world may be that kind of world, but likewise what about those that seek progress? Many need division to adapt or see such flaws. In a world where everyone agreed there would be no arguments, but likewise no two opinions would differ.

      Accidents would arise because people refused to disagree and violence would inevitably erupt because no person wants to hold the knowledge that something went wrong because they refused to allow disagreement. Countless mistakes have been made because of those too timid to speak up and that situation would be no different.

    • Ericdierker profile image

      Eric Dierker 2 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Excellent read. But couldn't someone's idea of a utopia be where everyone agreed? Not for me but someone could have that view and therefor utopia would not include division.