Dylan Wadyka<\/p>\n
Dr. Watts<\/p>\n
FYS 100, section 50<\/p>\n
15 December 2015<\/p>\n
Private Property and Wealth in Utopia<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In Thomas More\u2019s \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty,\u201d Anthony writes a letter to his nephew defending private property and wealth (\u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d 246). This letter comes in stark contrast to Raphael Hythloday\u2019s views in Utopia<\/em>. Hythloday condemns private property and wealth. He states that private property and wealth are a major problems plaguing European society. Hythloday firmly believes that communal property is a necessary component in a just and ideal society and that monetary wealth must be unimportant (46 Utopia<\/em>). Both of these works by More offer opposing views on wealth and private property. These works cause one to question whether private property or communal property creates a better society and whether or not More supports or opposes wealth and private property. In my opinion, More believes that a society based on communal property and the absence of currency is impractical and that private property and wealth are necessary to form the best possible society; however, I believe that More does support some of the aspects of communal property, such as giving to the poor.<\/p>\n \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d and the character More in Utopia<\/em> provide evidence that Thomas More believes that wealth and private property are necessary in society. In Utopia<\/em>, the character More argues that people cannot live comfortably in a society where property is held communally because people will have no motivation to work if they are not making a profit (48 Utopia<\/em>). As a result, there will not be enough goods for everyone (48 Utopia<\/em>). Even after Hythloday\u2019s description of Utopia, More still doubts that an ideal society would have communal property (134 Utopia<\/em>). In \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty,\u201d private property and wealth are thoroughly defended. Anthony writes to his nephew that it is possible to be moral and wealthy at the same time (249 \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d). He even goes so far as to say that wealthy people are essential to society because poor people rely on the wealthy for money; they provide jobs and charity to the poor (250 \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d). These two works by More reveal that he believes that private property and wealth are possible in an ideal society. More\u2019s concern that communal property and the absence of money eliminate people\u2019s motivation to work is valid because people want to work in order to have the best possible life. If you provide people with all of their wants regardless of their productivity, they will lose motivation to work. As a result, society\u2019s productivity would decrease. It also is not certain whether an equal distribution of wealth and communal property increase the general quality of life because people would only have just enough to survive and could not depend on charity during an emergency, such as a famine.<\/p>\n In \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty,\u201d Anthony examines Jesus\u2019 teachings on private property and communal property to prove that Jesus does not condemn private property but encourages his followers to practice some aspects of communal property, such as giving to charity. Anthony writes that Jesus invites his followers to abandon their possessions; however, Anthony states that he does not admonish those who do not abandon their possessions (246 \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d). Anthony uses this teaching as evidence that Jesus does not require one to reject private property in order to following his teachings. In his opinion, Jesus allows one to choose whether or not he or she would abandon their possessions (246 \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d). Anthony claims that one can be rich and still be in God\u2019s grace as long as that person gives to the poor (249 \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d). Charity is an aspect of communal property because it involves sharing a portion of your property or wealth with others. Charity causes one to abandon a portion of their property and give it to a person in need. Although Anthony supports charity, he does not believe that Jesus requires his followers to donate all of their possessions or to give to every beggar (252 \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d). Thomas More, who was active in the Church, most likely shares Anthony\u2019s view that Jesus does not require one to abandon all of their property and wealth but requires one to abandon a portion of their property and wealth by giving to charity. Therefore, More supports some aspects of communal property, but he does not believe that people should renounce all of their possessions or that communal property is superior to private property.<\/p>\n More provides two opposing opinions on wealth and private property in Utopia <\/em>and in \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty.\u201d More supports the main argument of \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d that private property and wealth create a more productive society because the character of More in Utopia<\/em> continuously finds that communal property and the lack of monetary wealth in Utopia are absurd. While More endorses private property, he does not believe that all aspects of communal property are absurd because he endorses charity, which is a less extreme aspect of communal property.<\/p>\n I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized help during the completion of this work.<\/p>\n Dylan Wadyka<\/p>\n Works Cited<\/p>\n Thomas More. Utopia. <\/em>Translated by Clarence H. Miller. New Haven: Yale University Press,<\/p>\n 2001.<\/p>\n \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d. \u00a0In A Thomas More Sourcebook,<\/em> edited by Gerard B. Wegemer and Stephen W. Smith. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dylan Wadyka Dr. Watts FYS 100, section 50 15 December 2015 Private Property and Wealth in Utopia \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In Thomas More\u2019s \u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty,\u201d Anthony writes a letter to his nephew defending private property and wealth (\u201cOn Private Property, Riches, and Poverty\u201d 246). This letter comes in stark contrast to Raphael Hythloday\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2405,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-43","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/43","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2405"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/43\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias03\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}