Analysis Of Sir Thomas More's Utopia

Sir Thomas More composed the book Utopia in the year 1516. Utopia looks into many of the problems that faced England in the sixteenth-century and what a society would look like in order to relieve those complications. The Utopian society is brought about through conversations between the characters Thomas More, his friend Peter Giles, and the traveling philosopher Raphael Hythloday. Giles and More are quickly impressed by the level of travel that Hythloday had experienced; they want to know what he has seen and heard from other regions in regards to government and civilization. In More’s Utopia, we will uncover some of the problems that England was facing at the time and see where the Utopian commonwealth would do to alleviate said problems,

He uses the characters to bring about points that went against common thought at the time. More does give some insight to his thoughts when he says, “When Raphael had finished his story, I was left thinking that not a few of the laws and customs he had described as existing among the Utopians were really absurd” (p. 106). More explains these things consisted of war, religion, and other smaller customs. More next says that “… my chief objection was to the basis of their whole system, that is, their communal living and moneyless economy” (p. 106). It is clear here that More was not completely for the Utopian society. He even goes as far as dismissing the communal practices which is the basis of the entire society in the first place. It makes sense since he was heavily involved in the Roman Catholic Church and an important figure. Much of Utopia goes completely against the norms that were set by 1516 in England. More also ends book II by stating, “Meantime, while I can hardly agree with everything he said… I freely confess that in the Utopian commonwealth there are very many features that in our own societies I would wish rather than expect to see” (p. 107). More is showing that even though he doesn’t agree with many of the aspects of Utopia, that it isn’t all bad. The only problem is that More poses the practices he likes with wishful thinking and not practicality. According to More,

If the commonwealth mindset could be achieved by everyone, then a place like Utopia seems pleasant in many instances. The ability for everyone to have the same equal respect for religious sects is appeasing. It’d be nice to have a society that is based on not having one religion being any more important than any other. The only problem that I have is the attitude of these religions and the disallowance of atheism. It’s troubling to think that the only reason to have respect for others religions and follow your own is to have this reward after death. It makes it appear like the people are fake and couldn’t have morals if they didn’t follow any God in particular. There is also a lack of individualism in this state. I’d prefer to decorate my house as I please and where the clothes I find best suit. These are minute problems based on the whole though. The lack of laws and lawyers is also another interesting fold in the Utopian society, one that I have found a liking to. The reason for this is because they simply don’t need them. To live in a society where laws unneeded since most people are good at heart sounds fantastic. Even if said laws are broken, the justice system seems fair and most just. People committing the most heinous crimes aren’t locked away to wither into dust. Rather, they are put to work as slaves so at least there is some productivity to these individuals. The last point I’d like to