Philosophical daydream , what if….

[PonderingsDistantdreams]

Ok, so I like thinking different theoretical things sometimes and thought it might be fun to start a thread (lighthearted) I guess about the concept of Utopia. Interested to see what other people’s ideas might be too.

So, what if…

…the world was turned on it’s head and structured completely differently. What if the world was ruled by ONE good leader, just one, and they were nothing but good. They had no evil in their heart, no selfish ambition, no cruelty, no bad intent of any kind. A person who was only good and fully trustworthy, able to lead and govern the whole world with love, compassion and fair justice. Above any possible human standard I know (which is why this is just a philosophical daydream :)

So in this world I am imagining this benevolent leader would have all the power BUT they didn’t misuse it in any way, not to control or harm, start wars or do anything that causes suffering. The opposite in fact that they work to alleviate human suffering everywhere and rebuild the broken world. Basically what if there was an ultimate benevolent humanitarian world leader.

This leader would have all the wealth in the world and distribute it completely equally and fairly (they themselves would not be rich). There would be no world hunger as everyone would have their needs met. Money would be poured into eradicating poverty and improving infrastructure, health care and services in the poorest areas and once completed raise the standard everyone else.
In this scenario I guess I picture it as a kind of revolutionary re-distribution of wealth, where the rich-poor divide would disappear. There would be no more super rich and super poor.
I am imagining in a revolution like this, the ability to accumulate personal wealth would be capped in order for everyone to have a home, food, clean water and sanitation, healthcare, clothes etc etc

Would people be happy in such a world?
I guess the super rich wouldn’t! But everyone else?

We have never had a leader who is good, REALLY good. Someone trustworthy who only acts in the best interests of people and improving quality of life.

But if we did, how would we feel under such a ruler?
Even if life was made better for people and poverty eradicated, would people start to feel discontent and get despondent for different reasons.

I guess I am pondering on the fact that historically we’ve had so many powerful world leaders who are corrupt, warmongers and do evil awful things.

I wonder what the world would be like with the complete opposite, something we’ve never had.

Do people have paid employment in this scenario? Are heart surgeons paid the same as nail technicians?

Hi @PonderingsDistantdreams

What you’re describing sounds a lot like what historic premillennialist Christians believe will be the condition of the earth following the cataclysmic return of the Lord Jesus Christ, when He will personally and physically rule the world for a thousand years prior to the final judgement.

We refer to it as The Millennium.

Is this benevolent and all powerful ruler also omniscient, wise and fully aware of all the different factors for all the different people who will experience the potential consequences of any decision? Because sometimes there's no right answer, and the changes that will prevent flooding and consequential famine in region A will cause drought and consequential famine in region B, or disadvantaged group C cry out for aid and a well-meaning ruler grants them a change in the law which inadvertently further disadvantages group D who just didn't cry out loudly enough. Are all the advisers and ministers who gather information for the ruler and enact the ruler's decrees also perfect in action and uncorruptible?

Sounds like the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek.

One of the issues is that while this perfect leader may think that what he/she is doing is good, different people will have different views of what "good" is. If you happen to agree with Dear Leader's views then, sure, you'll think that what they're doing is good. But if you don't then Dear Leader may very well end up looking like a tyrant.

Eg, Dear Leader may decide that everyone should be vegetarian as industrial-scale meat production is damaging to the environment. Dear Leader may decide that adultery causes such damage to relationships and society as a whole that adulterers should be executed.

There is no one universally accepted definition of what is good and what is not. People are more complicated than that.

You should read some fantasy or sci-fi, which is often concerned with what an equal society would look like in practice. Becky Chambers’ Wayfarer series is set 200 years after the last humans left a polluted and uninhabitable earth to live on a fleet of giant spaceships (the rich had already decamped to Mars). Their society is egalitarian in that everyone has equal access to food, water, clothing, education and housing. There is no pay, but huge emphasis on the value of people’s contribution to their society by training for something difficult or dangerous, and everyone, from over the age of 14 from the Admiral of the Fleet to someone who washes up in a cafe, is in a lottery for stints cleaning sewers or recycling. No one is hungry or homeless, but everyone is comparatively poor. Some people leave for other societies.

This is the kind of philosophical idea I like to chew on!

I think people would still work but there would be a cap on personal wealth. So you could still work hard and earn well, but if once the cap limit is reached your earnings go into the global pot.

Let’s say heart surgeons are paid as much as nail technicians, would they be less driven and perform more poorly as surgeons due to less pay? Could it even result in a collapse of highly skilled professionals (medically and other highly trained/ skilled workers, eg lawyers, pilots, architects etc) as no one would want to pursue a long and difficult, expensive career path if it did not result in significant personal financial reward?

But equally let’s flip it and say nail technicians are paid as much as surgeons (ie both have a great rate of pay). People would still be free to pursue their passion and career of choice, but personal wealth ( beyond a reasonable limit) was no longer the benchmark of success.

I guess what effect would it have on people’s career choices/ paths if money was removed as a motivating factor.

Totally agree and my thinking is definitely influenced by this.

I guess I am thinking along the lines of if a good, (truly good) human leader was possible and voted into power, how this might shape society and world systems. How systems could be changed so everyone was free to live a fair and good life, free from poverty, war, equal access to good food, clean water, medicine, a safe home, a future they know is financially secure for them and their children etc

Exactly yes, like they will have ultimate wisdom to understand what decisions will result in the best outcomes (humanitarian and environmental). This raises the question as you rightly highlight that there are ethical dilemmas where a ‘right’ answer isn’t clear, and how improvements in one region could spell disaster for another due to unforeseen consequences.
Perhaps this leader has access to new highly advanced technology that is able to accurately forecast decision outcomes and impact.

Also in the first place I think the decisions would be no- brainers ie for supplying aid, food, medical care and infrastructure for the world’s poorest and war torn populations. Destructive industries would have to change their practices to be fair on workers and the environment.

Yes there would definitely need to be advisers and administrators to make sure all funds were distributed fairly and the measures carried out ie. Village A needs clean water and sanitation, village B needs a hospital, urban area C needs a raft of investment to alleviate social deprivation, x number of people are homeless etc. The advisers and administrators would have to be good hearted like the leader.

I love sci-fi! 😁

Absolutely, it makes it an interesting philosophical area of debate because people’s views on ‘what is right’ is different. I think the scenario works best off universally accepted ethical values ie murder, abuse, exploitation, theft, kidnapping, violent harm etc = bad.

It could be that certain industry practices like farming would have to change so to reduce environmental damage and promote better animal welfare but the result of this could mean the availability of meat being reduced. If the leader was able to distribute fair income to everyone though it could be viable that there would be more smaller and diverse farms, rather than the huge scale industrial mono-culture farms. Regarding adultery and other social issues such as substance abuse/ addiction, helping to move away from practices that cause harm is tricky. As you say people are v complicated! I would say the leader wouldn’t issue any death sentences but would tackle the fundamental foundations on which the world currently pivots - starting with the re-distribution of wealth, fair and equal treatment of people and improving health and welfare globally will have a positive knock on effect to how society functions. For good or bad I don’t know but there are cases to be made on both sides I think.

Thanks for this, I will look into the Wayfarer series! :)

I find it fascinating, chewing on what ifs. What if someone cared enough about the world and was good, pure in motive and able to walk it out wholeheartedly, how would it impact the world if such a person was in charge of the whole thing. Like I see a sick animal struggling in the gutter, for me it is a no-brainer, I stop the car (in this case it was a sick hedgehog!) pick the poor creature up and take it to the nearest vet. So many of us would do the same. There is goodness in peoples’s hearts I really believe that, it’s just we can’t do only good, all of the time. But what if there was someone who could.

The idea of stints of service is interesting. I can understand why people wanted to leave that society though, no one wants to be forced to work and do anything especially difficult tasks/ hard labour. I can’t imagine the good leader in this scenario requiring service like this, sounds controlling and dictator like. Maybe it is far enough in the future that service robots would be around and could undertake these kinds of tasks!

I love the themes and ideas that can be explored through sci-fi and fantasy, because we all know the reality in the world is a nightmare of suffering for so many.

It definitely sounds like what you are seeking is a deity not a human. And there's plenty of scifi where humanity throws off the shackles of a benevolent all-powerful and all knowing deity because the pain and suffering of choosing our fate and making mistakes and not always doing what is good and right and pure is a freedom that is more valuable to us than the freedom from grief that comes with being perfectly controlled. In Christian theology, God is understood to be omnipotent and has the capacity to take over and force us into utopia, but does not because of the importance of free will, so instead of controlling the world and ending suffering by ending freedom, God incarnated into the middle of the suffering, to suffer with us and hence redeem and transform the suffering. I reckon that your theoretical deity, if imbued with the wisdom to do the job you require, will end up having the wisdom to not exercise that power.

It's easy to say "everyone will agree that murder is bad" but murder is unjustified killing. Are all killings unjustified and so murder, or can there be justified killing? Do you think it's likely that everyone would agree?

If you read up on the research on ethics such as the trolley problem, I think you'll find that the line between justified and unjustified killing varies wildly from person to person.

This is what I imagine New Zealand was like with Jacinda

So this is just meant as a bit of fun / lighthearted :) and maybe a space to share ideas of what others think. I can’t answer or even claim to understand the complexities of big ethical dilemmas but do like thinking about scenarios about what if ‘x change’ happened, how would that impact ethics, personal liberty and freedom of choice. Would ‘x change’ make the world a better place and what might the knock on effects be. Just purely theoretical. Ideally (and always in my mind) savings lives and improving life for those in the greatest need and then everyone else.

Some related themes - if all the money in the world was given to me, how would I use it? It’s fun to think and plan what you might do!
Essentially I don’t think one flawed person could ever be trusted with that much money and power though, which is why I prefer to assign it to a wise and compassionate leader (and yes I agree that in practice this would need to be a divine nature rather than flawed human nature)

What would the world look like if overnight all weapons of war and machinery disappeared along with the manufacturing facilities? (so new ones could not be made). All guns including privately owned, bombs, missiles, tanks, grenades, nukes - gone.

Yes and killers who have mental health disorders may fully believe their killing is justified. I’d like to think most people think unjustified killing is wrong. What do you think is an example of justified killing? Ie would this be something like capital punishment in the US?

Wow the trolley problem, that’s a big one! If there was no option but for someone to die in this scenario it’s awful isn’t it? If there was the option to make superman the operative so they could divert the train down to the one person but then also fly across and rescue them before they got squished that would be best 😁

Interesting, was she known for bringing in a lot of positive reform?

If I had full control:

All weapons melted down.
Anything toxic/radioactive sent to the sun in a specially designed rocket.
Money initially spent on providing clean water, food, decent housing, healthcare/medicine and quality education to all people (in that order).
Next priority, animal welfare - supporting endangered species, creating new habitats, caring for and enhancing current habitats.
Then research into cures for cancer etc.
Everyone over the age of 18 would receive a lump sum of £100,000
Essential services would be funded and everyone would receive a free basic food package each week.
Will have to think more on how wages would work.

Thank you, lots to think about here. Yes I agree the nature of the leader would have to be divine (or have a divine type nature ie ‘superhuman’) to be elevated enough to lead 100% selflessly and compassionately. Yeah the freedom to choose is important, people make good choices and bad. Do you think the world is in such a bad state due to the exercise of free will?
We cannot live or love without it.

Also, money would be spent on clean, renewable energy sources. Focus would be on small, cottage industry and smaller scale organic farming so everything would be green and local. Big supermarkets and leading chains would be ousted - every village/town would have a greengrocer, butcher, baker, independent cafe, corner shop, hardware store etc. No carbon copy high streets.

The internet would be unplugged, but effective recording and booking systems would be kept.

No cars. They would be replaced by clean, comfortable and efficient public transport systems. The B roads would become cycle routes with good signage and fast/slow lanes.
Things like F1 and rally tracks would remain for anyone who wants to drive for fun.

Love this!!

I might bump the cancer research (and other disease cure research) up a bit higher

You're probably right @PonderingsDistantdreams. Hopefully my second post doesn't sound too dystopian!

I can't help wondering why the issue always gets reduced to money. As if money alone is what creates a sense of worth in the world. In an unhealthily Capitalist society (which is what I think we have now, globally) money is revered as the ultimate prize. But in a society ruled by a truly good person, money would take its place alongside health, free time, creative expression, close family relationships, close friendships, strengthening love and sexual pleasure with a partner (or partners), learning and skill-building, community celebrations and festivals, spiritual development, appreciation of nature and the world's resources, caring for our homes and our planet - all as equally powerful sources of happiness. All of these goals would have equal value and be prized and focused on. Money would be such a tiny part of what society strives for and admires.

We would take more pride in creating beautiful buildings, music, gardens, poetry & stories, paintings and sculptures than we would in squeezing profits out of everything we touched. Men would be admired more for having long happy marriages and being excellent fathers and would be ridiculed and socially scorned for walking out on pregnant partners or small children.

The concept of 'enough' would be celebrated. Enough doesn't need to be frugal. It doesn't need to be the same for everyone. But chasing money for its own sake, once you have enough to live on comfortably for life would be seen as a fool's game - a complete loss of balance. The redistribution of wealth and sharing it out, as Mackenzie Bezos has done, would be seen as the only sane and impressive thing to do once your wealth hits a certain peak. The amassing of wealth for its own sake, as Jeff Bezos does, would be seen as craven, daft, ridiculous.

My point is that saying "most people think unjustified killing is wrong" is valueless unless you can follow it up with "...and most people have the same view about what makes a killing justified versus unjustified".

Most people would probably say that a soldier killing another soldier in a war is justified and therefore not murder. What about a soldier killing a civilian during war? What if that civilian was manufacturing armaments? And so on. You quickly get into areas that are so morally ambiguous that you can't get a consensus on whether a given killing is justified or not.

I think that for a human decision to do what is right and good to be meaningful and a source of joy in the world, the human must have the freedom and capacity to do the opposite. I think that you are envisioning an "unfallen" world where people don't have the freedom or capacity to choose what is selfish or damaging and I think the resultant world would be bland and depressing with no meaning or joy. Light shines in darkness, without understanding what darkness means, how can we take joy in the existence of light?

I also can't see how a sentient species can arise without an instinct for selfishness and self-advancement if the mechanism for the evolution of that species is via a process of evolution ie survival of the fittest. Selfishness either on an individual or tribal level is intrinsic to who we are as a species. To not have it, the deity would have to create perfect beings directly, without the mechanism of evolution. However, there is a greater joy and celebration when one of us complex and inadequate imperfect humans makes an active choice to do what is good and right, than there would be for a perfect/angelic being to do a good thing when they have no capacity to do the opposite.