Thomas More's Utopia Essay
Cover of Utopia
Thomas More's famous Utopia can be seen as a treatise on a variety of subjects having to do with good governance in a republic, building on the ideas of classical theorists such as Plato, and imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment. During the conversations related in the book, the issue of whether it is better to live a life of philosophic contemplation or to pursue a life of politics is discussed several times, with More's character favouring political involvement, while his new friend Raphael Hythloday maintains that quiet contemplation is preferable. This paper will relate the arguments these two men engage in, to show the advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of life, proving in the end that Hythloday was correct in asserting that a life of philosophic contemplation is preferable.
When More's friend Peter Giles introduces him to Raphael Hythloday, Giles early on suggests that Hythloday enter into the service of a king, because his “learning and knowledge ... would entertain ... while [his] knowledge and ... examples would be helpful at the counsel board” (More 2002, 13). This explains one of the main arguments seen in Utopia for why a person should enter into political life – to be of assistance to a King and his counsellors. Peter goes on to say that Raphael could “advance [his] own interests and be of great use ... to all [his] relatives and friends” (More 2002, 13), introducing another argument in favour of political service, namely that it is possible to use it as a springboard to personal advancement, as well as a noble form of altruism – or, at the least, of nepotism. In addition to this service, Peter feels political advisement to be a sure method to make Raphael happy. Surely these are worthwhile reasons to engage in political life.
Raphael is quick to counter Peter's reasons in support of a political life. He says that he has already been of use to his relatives, having given them their inheritance early. He does not, therefore, see this as justification enough to “enslave [him]self to any king” (More 2002, 13). This is the first indication that he views a political life in a manner radically different from the views of Peter (and More). He goes on to say that such a life is “absolutely repellent to [his] spirit” (More 2002, 13), and so therefore could not possibly make him happy. Instead, he notes that he is able to live life as he pleases, whereas “very few courtiers ... can say that” (More 2002, 13). Finally, he counters Peter's idea that he should serve in politics for a king's own sake by professing that so many other men are seeking to fill such a role that he could not be missed. This initial salvo lays the groundwork for Raphael's refutation of politics, in favour of a contemplative life, based on the freedom and happiness it offers him.
More's character is clearly intrigues and impressed by Hythloday's opinions. He interjects that, while a political life may not make Raphael happy, it would be “worthy of [his] noble and philosophical nature [to] devote his intelligence and energy to public affairs” (More 2002, 13). This is one of More's main arguments in favour of a political life – that it is a way to utilize one's learning and experience to encourage in a king “just and noble actions” (More 2002, 13). More initially feels this is a self-evident benefit to pursuing a political life.
Raphael is quick to disillusion More on this point. He asserts that he does not have the skills that More attributes him, and that even if he did “the public would still not be any better off” (More 2002, 14). The reason Hythloday feels this way is that he thinks that “most princes apply themselves to the arts of war ... instead of ... peace” (More 2002, 14), pursuits to which he is not inclined. Raphael would prefer a contemplative life than one supporting kings' pursuit of “new kingdoms by hook or crook” (More 2002, 14). Even despite this ideological stance, Raphael points out that kings' counsellors generally think themselves “so wise already that they don't need to accept or approve advice from anyone else” (More 2002, 14). This forms part of Raphael's main opposition to More's beliefs. He goes on to suggest that most counsellors are self-aggrandizing seekers of favour, more inclined to find “fault with the proposals of others” (More 2002, 14) than to accept good advice. Most counsellors, Raphael says, will denounce innovative policies as disrespectful to ancestral traditions – at least when they are put forth by others (More 2002). Thus Raphael shows a contemplative life as one that avoids having to support war-mongering or face groundless attack from a king's council, and thus as preferable to political engagement.
At this point Raphael relates his opinion on the current state of England's policies toward both thieves and sheep. These disparate topics initially seem unrelated to the merits of a political or contemplative life, but they are in fact integral. Raphael claims that England's policy of executing thieves is not only unjust, since it is overly harsh and in defiance of God's law, but also ineffective, since there are systemic changes occurring which leave many people with literally no choice but to steal, since the only alternative is to starve (More 2002). He says that land enclosure policies, done in the name of raising sheep, are a prime cause of unemployment, poverty, and the need of men to steal. Instead of retributive execution, Raphael suggests a restorative approach, so that society could benefit from the labour of convicts, while they themselves would have the possibility to rejoin society if pardoned by their king (More 2002). This analysis clearly represents the end product of a period of philosophical contemplation for Hythloday, yet it is met with scorn by those who hear it. Raphael says that, when a Cardinal offered his support for the idea, those gathered nearby were soon “praising enthusiastically ideas which they had received with contempt when [Raphael] suggested them” (More 2002, 25). This helps underscore Raphael's assertion that, were he to pursue a political life, his counsel would not be heeded, and it shows how a contemplative life can lead to a better understanding of truth and justice.
Despite Raphael's clever story to illustrate his position, More tries once more to persuade him. He again stresses the idea that a political life would enable Raphael to be “of the greatest advantage to the public welfare” (More 2002, 27), which he asserts to be an important duty of a good man. At this point he even recalls to mind Plato's call for a philosophic political class of kings, trying to ally his arguments with those of respected classical scholars. More claims that an active pursuit of politics offers a chance to make positive change in a kingdom, and is thus preferable to a contemplative life of philosophy.
Yet Raphael again refutes More. He claims that while philosophers are available who would advise, kings are not “willing to take their good advice” (More 2002, 28). He illustrates how kings, lacking a philosophical tendency, would not receive his advice well. For example, what if Raphael recommended the King of France put aside his military expansionism, instead focusing solely on France itself in an effort to govern it well and win the love of his citizens (More 2002)? Even More appears swayed that such advice would not be received “very enthusiastically” (More 2002, 31). Raphael goes on to ask what would happen if he were to suggest, to the contrary of other counsellors' advice, that the King avoid raising money through taxation or unfair economic practises, and that he should instead permit his citizens to flourish by living modestly (More 2002). He is showing that a political life would not in fact allow him to enact positive changes, since his advice would not be well received or subsequently enacted.
More admits that such advice would be ignored. However, he chastises Raphael for delivering it in such an uncompromising and radical manner. He recommends that Raphael use guile, and to not “abandon the commonwealth” (More 2002, 35) just because he is unable to cure every evil at once. Instead, More says that by adopting a more tactful approach, Raphael could prevent the worst abuses of royal power, modifying their governance to be “as little bad as possible” (More 2002, 35). This represents a shift in More's argument, as he has clearly been convinced that deception is necessary in order for Raphael to be successful in a life of politics. Yet still he believes that this harm reduction approach justifies political pursuits.
Raphael does not agree with More. He points out that deception would not permit him to make the change that More believes, instead serving only to support the destructive policies of others – to “confirm them in their madness” (More 2002, 36). He feels prevaricating would “make people feel more secure about doing evil” (More 2002, 36), hardly the noble deed More has suggested. Raphael feels that the system of private property in itself prevents a kingdom from being “just or prosperous” (More 2002, 37), and that while some policies may serve as dressings on the wounds of “sick bodies that are past cure” (More 2002, 37), in the end the only cure is to adopt communism. Thus, at the end of their discussion, Raphael has held fast to his assertion that a life of private contemplative philosophy is preferable to that of the active pursuit of politics.
In summation, this paper has outline the discussion between the characters of Thomas More and Raphael Hythloday regarding whether it is better to live a contemplative or political life. More's initial preference for the political was met with resistance by Raphael, who countered his arguments repeatedly throughout. Raphael pointed out that, were he to become a political adviser, his council would be belittled or ignored, or would have to be moderated in such a way as to be an immoral equivocation. He showed how he would be unhappy and unable to enact the sweeping changes he felt necessary. In the end, the best that More was able to say for a life of political pursuits was that it could offer a man some personal advancement for himself and his kin (a rather small and shallow benefit), and that it could – perhaps – mitigate some of a king's worst policies. Even still this remained doubtful, as the kind of man willing to so moderate his own position as to be well received by a king and his council would be unlikely to be able to maintain enough integrity in the face of constant opposition to fight for incremental moderation of harmful policies. Raphael, on the other hand, showed that contemplative philosophy was a way to maintain his integrity, avoid enslaving himself to a king, and further the search for truth and justice, free from the tyranny of a council of self-serving political advisers.
References
More, Thomas. 2002. Utopia. In Logan, George and Robert Adams, ed. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
0 comments:
Post a Comment