Jane asked:

How could I get children (age 14 approx) to think about designing the ideal society?

============

I don't think you should try to do this or even want to. In history, attempted ideal societies have tended
to be authoritarian, illiberal, restricting and inflexible. These characteristics actually seem to be
inseparable from ideal societies and utopias because those who establish them obviously don't want
them to change. But those same characteristics often explain to a great extent why so many ideal
societies eventually fail because of the internal stresses and strains they generate. A major problem
is always what do you do about all those people who do not like what you regard as ideal?

Much better is to inculcate in your children a healthy scepticism towards those people who claim to
know what an ideal society should be.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't encourage your children always to try to improve the world. They
certainly should. In his work on political philosophy, Sir Karl Popper advocated just this. When you
see something wrong with society, try to fix it. But bear in mind that the actions you take to fix the
problem may well produce unexpected new problems that you had never even thought of. Of course,
you don't then give up. You try to fix the new problems, and so on. Society then progresses in this
way through processes of trial and error. Hopefully it also improves but, as Popper said, there can
never be any guarantees of improvement.

Popper called this sort of approach 'piecemeal social engineering' and it is really at one with his whole
philosophy that all life is problem solving.

But it's like painting the Forth Bridge. The work never stops. And we shouldn't want it to because if it
did stop — perhaps because it was thought that the ideal society had been achieved — there would
nothing left for us to do. It would be like being in heaven. That sounds fine until you remember you
can only be in heaven if you are dead.

John Sartoris

I will not concern myself with the question whether such a question is useful. But why not?

Just some ideas: THE ideal society doesn't exist. Every system of thought has its own ideals. You
might think that for instance democracy is ideal. Why? It could very well be possible that in Eastern
cultures this doesn't fit. So start with letting think children about THEIR ideal of society. But I guess
that's what you mean. At the age of fourteen their creativity shouldn't be a problem. A bigger problem
is usually your own value system. Try not to judge. Children often have problems constructing a
system. So why not add promising ideas to a virtual society (let them decide what is promising).

Henk Tuten

Well, there's always science fiction... Ursula LeGuin has several books on this theme... you might try
her Lathe of Heaven.John Brunner The Stone that Never Came Down,and maybe, if they're bright
kids, Stand on Zanzibar.There is always Wells' Time Machine... and so forth. All in all, I'd take a look
into the sci-fi literature; there's lots of utopian speculations there, and some of it is combined with
good adventure also.

Steven Ravett Brown

Of course you will start letting the kids put down any ideas of what they think a good society should
look like. This would be the first round of this game. The second would be to look for contradicting
goals in this list. Perhaps put the list on the blackboard in front of them in the classroom and let them
debate and see. To learn that some goals are contradicting is a great step to deeper insight.

Then let them discuss different ideas of what is "good". I always call Plato's Republica "brilliant
nonsense", because it's a brilliant analysis of our concepts of "justice", but misses the important fact
that human togetherness is not only justice. I compare this to the different concepts of "good eating"
underlying the advice of the gourmet and the advice of the doctor: The gourmet speaks of "grand
cuisine", while the doctor speaks of vitamins and minerals and calories etc. In this sense you may
have the kids compare the life of a playboy or playgirl on a palm-beech ("The Bacardi World") against
the life of a monk or nun in a cloister after vowing "poverty, chastity, and obedience" to the prior.
While completely different both forms of life and togetherness are decent, sensible and "good" in a
specific way.

Next let them see the difference between utopian totalitarian designs as in Huxley's Brave New World
or as in Fascism and Stalinism and in the Taliban regime etc. as compared to interpersonal relations
in the New Testament or in "humanistic psychology" (Maslow, Rogers, Fromm etc.) concentrating on
"mutual love and understanding" without any "grand design" of society. What makes the difference?
Here is a hint:

The socialist model of society failed, the Christian model of society failed likewise, and so did the
liberal model. Why? Because all three models presupposed a very unrealistic model of human
behaviour.

People are cowards, they are lazy, they are greedy, they are envious, they are vile, they are stupid,
they are stubborn, they are arrogant, they are self-opinionated, they are vain, they are craving for
power, they are sadistic, they are weak, they are forgetful but unforgiving, they are whimsical and
capricious, they are lecherous and hypocrites, they are sensuous and voluptuous, they are
thoughtless, gullible, and superstitious, and they sometimes even are mad and beset by mad ideas
and fears and irreal hopes etc. And all this you have to take into account when building "an ideal
society".

You cannot build a society on the concept of a "Christian" or a "socialist" or a "liberal" personality.
That's nonsense. Those people are very rare indeed like geniuses and saints. It was not only the idea
of a socialist society that was questionable. The real cause of failure was the misunderstanding that
people could be selfless and caring and behave responsible all of a sudden. If you are a member of
the "nomenklatura" in a communist state, you are not the "representative of the workers" anymore,
but you are the member of the nomenklatura in the first line. You adapt to the requirements of this
nomenklatura and to the specific craving for power and the specific greediness, vileness and
self-righteousness of this nomenklatura. But of course you would never admit it. Thus the whole
construct of "representing the working class" becomes a great lie and self-deceit of the members of
the "socialist elites". And if you are paid a meager but at the same time assured and equal income by
socialist standards, indifferent of your abilities or industriousness or inventiveness, you eventually
stop being industrious and inventive and start being lazy and indifferent. And this you start not only
because of resignation, but also because of being hassled by the more lazy and indifferent people
around you. You cannot expect many achievers in a society that in fact calls achieving an unnatural
and inhumane and "un-social" behaviour. Likewise there are many liberal lies and self-deceits on the
real goings of a liberal society like in the USA or elsewhere. And of course there are many lies and
self-deceits on the real goings of a Christian or an Islamic society defended by the true believers
against all evidence.

All this is quite natural and "human". A good society is one that tries to be honest to experience, that
tries to avoid the self-deceit, be it socialist or Christian or Islamic or liberal or whatever. Sounds very
simple, but is very hard, because most people prefer false dreams. To be slim you should eat less fat
and sugar an do sports and walking. But people prefer to eat fat and sugar and then pay dear for
wonder-pills and wonder-exercises to get their weight down. This too is quite natural and "human".
The problem is not to pay for the poor and the jobless and the elderly, the problem is that people don't
like to do what is needed. They prefer to wail over all sorts of "crises of the welfare state". This is
exactly like wailing over too much weight: Serious experts know what to do, but since it's annoying
their advice is not asked for and so the quacks do the show.

And then there is this other and even deeper problem: The problem of perfectionism. Most well
meaning people, when starting to design a "good society", set up a list of all evils as are smoking,
drinking, "immoral behaviour" etc., and then simply call it item for item "forbidden" or "unnatural" etc..
Thus no smoking, no drinking, no "immoral behaviour" etc. anymore. They simply don't understand
the difference between robots and living humans. Eating cake all the time surely is not good, but
sometimes eating cake is very good. Fighting, running and achieving all the time surely is not good,
but sometimes fighting, running and achieving in a contest is very good. But those schematic people
designing a better world don't get it. Since they are principled fools they want clear decisions: X
should be either bad or good, but not sometimes bad and sometimes good. But most things in life are
good or bad only in some measure or under certain circumstances and not once and for all and under
all conditions. Simpleminded persons get confused by this, while it's only common sense. This too is
"being honest to experience".

Thus let all things as they are? No! There are real fools and evil persons around whose thoughts and
deeds should not be tolerated. In a certain way, the Giuliani (the former mayor of New York city)
principle of "zero tolerance" against trespassers of the law is not bad. But this does not include
strictures in the form of a totalitarian regime like that of the Taliban or of some Christian
fundamentalists as in the Geneva of Calvin.

There is an essential and clear difference to be seen: The "zero tolerance" principle is a defensive
principle, not an oppressive or positively coercive one. It does not tell people what to do, it only tells
them what NOT to do. It says in effect "Keep out of my home and garden, no trespassing here — but
I don't care what you do otherwise." Thus "zero tolerance" only means "drawing the line". And by this
the principle of "zero tolerance" lacks the moral arrogance of all true believers that try to impose their
moral convictions on other people. True believers are zealots that don't like to learn and to listen, but
that only want all others to have to learn and to listen. This is not the position of defenders of "zero
tolerance", who are liberals.

And it's not the position of defenders of the Golden Rule either: The Golden Rule says "As you would
like to have others do onto you, so do yourself onto others!" But this is not enforcing the behaviour of
the others but your own behaviour. If you want people to be nice and helping, you first start to be nice
and helping yourself and not shouting people around what to do and how to behave.

And then: According to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle "the good" is desired just for being good, like
sweets are desired by the kids just for being sweet. Thus to make the good look good and attractive
you have to advertize and to demonstrate it's quality, not to force people into some "good behaviour".
You have to sell the better quality on the marketplace. But this is imposed on you, the seller, it's not
enforcing the buyers to buy. You may be tempted to ban some "bad goods" from the market — but
you should not. You may denounce what you think is bad, but let the customers decide for
themselves. This is the way of an open and learning society. Criticize and advertize — but don't
patronize or matronize, and don't compel.

Thus it is not quite impossible to bring some clarity into this debate on a good society. Even teenies
should get an idea of the dangers of "designing the ideal society" by this and should become very
cautious. But at the same time they should be encouraged: There really is much that can be done to
improve human togetherness. That too they should learn by thinking it over.

Hubertus Fremerey