Philosophical Foundations of Privacy

                 This post is a summary of the chapter 2, with the title above, from the book with the title of, "A Buddhist Theory of Privacy." This book was published in 2016 at  www.springer.com/cda/content/.../9789811003165-c2.pdf?...

                Compared with other topics, such as democracy and justice, privacy has received relatively less attention from philosophers. This is quite surprising, since privacy is an important concept and plays an important role in our lives. Most academic literature on privacy come from law or communication studies, or the emerging field of Internet studies. In this chapter I review what philosophers have said about privacy. Thomas Scalon argues that there is indeed a common ground to the right of privacy, and that is the condition of 'being able to be free from certain kinds of intrusions' And it is the intrusions of our bodies, behaviors and interactions with others are some of the clear examples of intrusions that violate the norm of privacy. According to Robert Murphy, privacy was universally recognized in all societies as a necessary tool whereby people earn trust toward one another. It is essential in establishing a sense of the self and in social relationships. Murphy also holds that privacy is necessary in maintaining relationships even among those who are close to one another, as a means of keeping certain distance in case there might need to compare Murphy's view with the view proposed in the book, which is more concerned with how the information pertaining to an individual might be used or how one could protect the integrity of one's own sense of self. Westin argues that, as an empirical matter, privacy is also universal in all societies. Practices such as covering of the genitals, having sexual intercourse in a hidden place, are considered private and shows that privacy is practiced in all cultures. Practices such as having private conversations among trusted friends who do not want to share the information to outside circle may well be universal, but perhaps what concerns most people regarding privacy in today's world is that their private lives are being threatened by new technologies and by surveillance by the authorities. In any case, the question is: What are we protecting when we claim that we need to be protecting our privacy against unwanted intrusions? It seems that we are protecting access to our own lives in terms of our information pertaining to our identity, or our inner sphere of life where we do not want outsiders to know them or to make them publicly available. According to Schoemann, the various proposals of definition of the term start first with the claim that privacy is a claim, an entitlement, or a right to determine what information one should allow others to have access to.  In a well-known article, Fried writes: "It is my thesis that privacy is necessarily related to relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust. Privacy is not merely a technique for furthering these fundamental relations; rather without privacy they are simply inconceivable" Privacy is the condition of not having undocumented personal knowledge about one possessed by others. A person's privacy is diminished exactly to the degree that others possess this kind of knowledge about him, where personal information consists of facts which most persons in a given society choose not to reveal about themselves, or of facts about which a particular individual is acutely sensitive and which he therefore does not choose to reveal about himself. Schoemann's definition leaves open the question what is actually meant by the person whose access is limited, and another one of how much the limit should be. He gives three accounts on the person, namely information about himself, intimacies of his life, and his thoughts and his body. But perhaps there could be a case where the person himself or his privacy  is not exhausted by these three relatable to him, is obtained without his permission. In a different vein, Graeme Laurie argues that privacy should be viewed as "a state of non-access from others." What he has in mind is a definition that combines two major strands of privacy, spatial and informational privacy. Spatial privacy is the state of non-access to a person's physical or phychological self, and informational privacy is the state where others do not have access to a set of information pertaining to a person. Privacy and autonomy of the individual are closely related concepts. There are many arguments supporting the idea that privacy is necessary for autonomy. In one of the strongest support for the link between privacy and individual autonomy, Michael Eldred discusses Beate Rossler's work, "The Value of Privacy", where she defends privacy in terms of something that emerges from individual autonomy. According to Rossler, one has a normative claim to privacy when one's autonomy depends necessarily on the realization of privacy; in her words, "the true realization of freedom, that is a life led autonomously, is only possible in conditions where privacy is protected." Privacy is not only related to autonomy of individuals, but on a wider, social scale privacy also has a lot to do with justice. In fact, the concern for privacy of individuals could be regarded as a concern for justice. When someone has an unfair advantage over others, such as when one has the power to obtain information about others' personal and private lives whereas others can not do so in return, this would be a clear case of injustice. One of the most interesting topics in philosophical discussions on privacy is the conceptual relation between privacy and the individual. Perhaps the most salient aspect of privacy as a topic philosophy is that it functions as something belonging to the individual such the state is not justified in taking it away. We have seen that from the Roman times onward, privacy specifies what belongs to the individual and seems to presuppose a clear line between the individual and what is outside of him or her. Many arguments purporting to justify privacy rely on the conception of human dignity for support. Privacy is needed so that the dignity of individuals can be maintained. Defenders of the importance of privacy have generally followed two related strategies: 1) Arguments designed to show that respect for privacy is a key component in the regard for human dignity. The appeal here is to such conditions as moral integrity, individuality, consciousness of oneself as a being with moral character and worth, and consciousness of oneself as a being with a point of view, searching for meaning in life. 2) Arguments designed to show that respect for privacy is integral to our understanding of ourselves as social beings with varying kinds of relationships, each in its way important to a meaningful life.  The first line of arguments argue that, since individuals have their own moral worth, and since privacy is necessary for the expression or the viability of those worths, privacy is thus needed and is justified. Another point in philosophical analysis of privacy is the relation between privacy as a social norm and the privacy we have our own private thoughts such that no one else can have access to. Privacy as a norm refers to a social condition where individuals are accorded respect by others and the authorities so that their lives are not made open for everyone to see. Justifying privacy will be the topic of the fourth chapter, where we build upon the material developed here and look at how to think deeply and justify privacy from the Buddhist perspective. Privacy is a very multifaceted concept. We have seen that according to Daniel Solove, it can not even be given a precise definition, since any attempts to do it would miss some important facet of the concept that is also recognizably an instance of privacy. Taking a cue from Wittgenstein, Solove argues that the concept could be understaood more as a kind of "family resemblance,"  where instances of privacy are related one with another, but without an essential property linking them all together. 

The Human Rights Agenda and the Struggle Against Impunity

                  This post is a summary of a book review with the title above, from the book, with the ttitle of, "Anti-Impunity and the Human Rights Agenda." This article was published in 2017 at https://www.lawfareblog.com/human-rights-agenda-and-struggle-against-impunity. The second summary is from the article published  in 2017 at  http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/148191/human-rights-impunity. The third was published in 2008 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19289881

                Towards the end of the 20th century, the global human rights movement embarked on a major shift in its agenda and priorities. From the mid-1970 through the late 1980, human rights groups tended to direct their advocacy in opposition to State criminalization of political activity and abuses within domestic criminal justice systems. The primary tactic was naming and shaming; the principal target was the state. From at least the early 1990s, however, the human rights movement underwent a "criminal turn," increasingly directing its resources towards the promotion of criminal prosecution as an indispensable requirement for securing justice, peace and truth in the aftermath of mass atrocity situations. The primary tactic became the promotion of criminal accountability before domestic and international courts, the principal target was the individual. It is this turn towards an anti-impunity norm that forms the focus of a stimulating new collection co-edited by Karen Engle, Zinaida Miller and D. Davis: Anti-Impunity and the Human Rights Agenda. Arriving at a time when the international criminal project is increasingly under scrutiny and a surge in divisive and isolationist populism has put many in the human rights community on the defensive, this collection of essaies offers a timely problematization of the anti-impunity agenda that has come to dominate human rights thinking over the past two decades. Bringing together some of the most prominent and engaged scholars in the field, the collection comprises ten chapters divided into three parts. Part I, define and trace the development of the anti-impunity norm amongst human rights advocates, scholars and practitioners. Examines how moments of anti-impunity against perpetrators of crimes have simultaneously constituted moments of impunity for more actors and injustices caused by systemic inequality. Part II, turns to examine anti-impunity struggles within five specific contexts. Part III contains two chapters that explore alternatives to the struggle against impunity. Albeit in different ways, these chapters manage to successfully carve out space for discussing and more diverse conceptions of justice beyond those that fit neatly within the narrow frame of conventional anti-impunity thinking. Beyond questions of definition, several chapters seek to understand how the anti-impunity agenda rose to prominence over the course of the past few decades. One of the most striking traits of the struggle against impunity has been its self-portrayal as a movement operating both beyond and against the realm of politics. As Zinaida explains anti-impunity has generally been invoked by the human rights movement "as a barricade against a violent and chaotic domestic politics that might infect the international rule of law." Such a perpective depicts politics in reductive terms as a realm of uncontrolled violence that must be assimilated to the serene rationality of an impartial legal process.  Seeking to move away from this depoliticized depiction of the struggle against impunity, the writers explain that one of their shared aims in compiling the collection was "to bring back to the fore the national and global political contexts and stakes that have often been backgrounded by the turn to criminal law, whether in practice or rhetoric." 

                Our country is very much the focus of global concern and attention on the twin issues of human rights and impunity. The U.N. defines human rights as "universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions which interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity." They are inalienable and inherent in each person. The state, or, the government is the primary duty-holder in respecting and promoting human rights and fulfilling the mandates towards their full realization. For the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, impunity means "the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violation to account, whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings, since they are not subject to any inguiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims," The 'de facto' impunity refers to the actual functioning of the state institutions to ensure that perpetrators of crimes will be punished, and that victims of crime will receive a compensation; and the 'the jure' impunity, meaning the existence of laws and authorities to hold accountable to perpetrators of crimes and others violations, impose a sanction and redressing the harm caused to victims." Definitely, decision-makers and citizens alike should address the gaps and instill measures to strengthen our institutions, vigorously promote the rule of law, and ensure that transparency and accountability in governance, before it is too late, before we regress to become a failed state like Haiti. The much-revered Senator Jose Dikno, capured  the essence of human rights by saying that, "no cause is more worthy than the cause of  human rights....they are what makes a person human. Deny them and you deny person's humanity." As cititzens, it is our shared duty to learn, promote and protect human rights through human rights education. Human rights are protected no less by our constitution. It unconditionally declares that "The state values the dignity of every human person and gurantees ful respect for human rights." With the wounds of the era of the dictatorship still fresh in our minds, a chapter on human rights is a very important part of our Constitution. Our independent tribunals, offices and commissions such as the Supreme Court, are clearly intended to be removed from the clutches of politics. The failure of a society to prioritize the compliance of laws leads to terrible distortions and structural problems that impede development. Democratic countries that have created strong security and justice intitutions can also achieve high levels of economic and social wellbeing.
              Case studies show that traumatized survivors of serious human rights violations, suffer from persisting impunity in their home countries. Ongoing impunity, the inability to overcome the legal protection of the perpetrators assured by impunity laws, incomplete truthfinding, missing integral reparation and a lack of the necessary acknowledgement by society, represents an important obstacle for the recovery of survivors of human rights violations. There are reports describing that a high percentage of surviviors shows an elevated mental vulnerability caused by impunity. Mental health problems resulting from traumatic experiences can persist or be reactivated by certain events.  In particular, family members of the forcibly disappeared suffer from an incomplete mourning due to the uncertain fate of their beloved ones. The ongoing search for the forcibly disappeared under an atmosphere of impunity puts family members under high risk of retraumatization. Studies from other continents also prove that impunity severely affects mental health. Due to the global character of impunity there can be only little evidence about a positive impact of justice on mental health. Nevertheless, a few examples, in particular from Latin America, show that the combined implementation of memory, truth and justice can have a healing impact on those who suffer from trauma. They demonstrate that the fight against impunity is not only a legitimate moral struggle for human rights, but also a basic need for the sustainable recovery of survivors. 

540th Birthday of Thomas Moore - Part II

                The tribute to Thomas Moore carry on this weekend. He died for his desire for a better politics, and for a more distributive power. He wanted a more inclusionary judicial and political systems, and to fight injustice.  This post is a summary of three articles and an essay. The first, the essay was published at      http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1691&context=masters_theses. The second was published at  https://www.grin.com/document/387035. The third was published at

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Thomas-Mores-Utopia-and-His-Context-FKUBH2ZTJ. The fourth was published at http://capitalismmagazine.com/2004/01/a-slave-state-society-in-sir-thomas-mores-utopia/ 

                        Utopian works have entertained generations throughout history. Much like more recent genres including science-fiction novels, utopian works stimulate the mind and cause its readers to question whether an author's design of such a place, or society, is possible in the real world. While some may perceive the purpose of utopias to be fantasy-driven, there is a great deal of scholarly literature that dedicates itself to proving otherwise. More specifically, many scholars argue that utopias are serious and ultimately aimed at re-shaping the political structure.  This thesis aims to understand the more pragmatic side of utopian writing by determining the purpose of three specific utopias: Thomas Moore's Utopia (1516), James Harrington's The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656), and Johann Andrea's Christianopolis (1619). These Renaissance-period utopias are explicitly framed by their author to make drastic changes to the political culture of their time and to prescribe practical solutions to alleviate political problems that they endured. Moore evaluates humanism, as well as the political structure of the Renaissance. As a humanist, Moore finds it absurd that instead of virtue being viewed as the greatest good, wealth and pedigree always precedence over it. Moore's anger stems from the fact that noblemen were at the centerpiece of everyday life. These men, or rulers, who held power over the commoners were the ones who were revered and thought to possess virtue. However, much to Moore's chagrin, the men who were supposed to be leading virtuously were not really leading by anything, but greed and disrespect for those who were considered politically and socially beneath them. The inevitable outcome is that 'so-called gentlefolk' run the commonwealth in their own vile interests, while common labourers without whom there would be no commonwealth at all are first of all misused by their masters and are then abandoned to 'a most miserable death.' Moore defends his humanistic position arguing that it is simple impossible for hierarchically structured to be virtuous. He claims,"no hierarchical society could ever in principle be virtuous, for in maintaining 'degree' we encourage the sin of pride, and in encouraging the sin of pride we produce a society founded not on virtues but on the most hideous vice of all." Pride only ensures that citizens will be divided and treated unjustly due to the hierarchical structure in which it lays the foundation. Pride, when employed by the aristocracy, is used as a weapon against the poor. Conversely, when the poor look to the rich for leadership, but only find pride, they are led to believe that only wealth matter. The contribution of Utopia transformed the way that authors wrote about their politics. This is evident in the surge of utopian-like words that were produced during the Renaissance not long after its publication. The amount of works dedicated to disambiguating the political purposes of Moore. Quentin Skinner and George Logan look to explain it as a result of Moore's humanist beliefs that hoped for society to return to studying the classical works. 

                     Thomas Moore's Utopia's is a precursor of the utopian literary genre that describes in detail ideal societies and perfectly arranged cities. The book is of great importance for the late medieval man. In fact, this book is one of the main cornerstones of the literary Renaissance. Moore has witnessed the flaws of the feudal system, of institutions like the church and the monarchy. His book is an attempt to draw a bright ray of hope in the medieval social paradigm. Utopia is a huge revolution in human consciousness and thought. Thousands of years of history know the injustice of the stronger to the weaker and the deprivation of the poor and the unlearned. The book is one of the most significant social and humanistic works in the history of literary thought. Over the years, the book was subject to a number of interpretations and has aroused strong controversy in the following matters: 1) The described social system is absolutely impossible to be implemented. 2) It is virtually grounded and justified the slave system. 3) It reflected an ironic and a fantasy, created for fun on the basis of which can not be made an adequate conclusion about the author's view. 4) It is justified totalitarian regime and described as ideal state system. 5) It is reflected the casuistry of modern cold war, justified is the superiority of one people over another. 6) It describes the widest democracy, defending the sovereignty of the people, in this sytem all issues are decided by the people's elected representatives, and the most important are solved by the people in the assembly of citizens. 

                   Utopia is Thomas Moore's seminal work, depicting a fictious island and its religious, and political customs. Working as an advisor to King Henry VII, Moore was aware of the issues of his time such as ridiculous inflation, corruption, wars for little or no purpose, courtly ostention, the abuse of power, and the maltreatment of the poor. Consequently, Moore used his book to contrast some unique and refreshing political ideas with the chaotic politics of his own country. It is important to note that Thomas did not intend to provide an exact blueprint for a perfect society, rather he merely present his ideas in the form of a political satire, revealing the evils of his time. As in Plato's Republic, a work from which Moore drew while writing, he present his ideas through a dialogue between two characters, Raphael Hythloday and Moore himself.  Hythlodasy is a fictional character who describes his recent voyage to the paradise of Utopia. Throughout the work, Hythloday descrives the laws, customs, systems of government, and way of life that exist in Utopia to an incredulous Moore. 

                    Thomas Moore's Utopia lays out several important ideas that help us understand the political thought of both now and the Renaissance, as well as providing us with a look into the conditions of  16th century in Europe. The book primarily acts as a vehicle for Moore to explore several issues, ranging from the advising of Kings to the role of private property in society. It is clear that Moore is making several arguments not only about contemporary political policy, but about the nature of government and the earlier attempts of Plato and Aristotle at crafting ideal states. The Utopian government isn't a unique one as far as literature or history goes in terms of its aims. The Utopians are concerned with societal well-being and instituting policies to maintain social harmony. The whole government is constructed with these goals in mind and thus the society of Utopia is highly planned, King Utopus planned the whole city of Amaurot, and managed in order to assure that goals are achieved in a number of ways. This is apparent in the realm of economics, the Utopian government is actively involved in the process of making sure everyone is working. This is reinforced by the fact that the main function of their elected officials is to "manage matters so that no one stays around in idleness, and to make sure that everyone works hard at his or her trade." The Utopians only have to work a six hour day, but even their free time is restricted in that, "The hours of the day, when they are not working, are left to each individual discretion, provided he does not waste his free time in roistering or sloth but uses it in some occupation that pleases him." Collective harmony must be maintained through population control measures, as overpopulation will mean discomfort and under population will mean a labor shortage. " If a city has too few or too many then the extra adults are transferred to the deficient city." Why did Thomas write Utopia ? Could he have thought this was a perfect society? Perhaps not, as Moore writes at the end about those things he had found absurd. "These included their methods of waging wars, their religious practices, as well as others of their customs, but my chief objection was to the basis of their whole system, that is their communal living and their moneyless economy."

540th Birthday of Thomas Moore

                Almost one month ago, precisely on February 7th, the English writer Thomas Moore would complete 540 years old. So, this post is a tribute to him, he was a pioneer in many areas. He was against the despot monarchy, he advocated for genre equality  and for a better education, he was against the explotation and injustice caused by his desire for more democracy. A common feature that all those utopian novels from the 16th and 17th centuries share is a broad and good education as a mean to achieve a better life and society. What we, in the 21th century, are still struggling to achieve.   This post is a summary of three articles, the first was published at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More. The second was published at  http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/flawedperfection/stories/more.htm. The third was published at  https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/u/utopia-utopian-literature/about-utopia-and-utopian-literature. The fourth was published at https://owlcation.com/humanities/Was-Thomas-Mores-book-Utopia-a-typical-product-of-Renaissance-humanism

                Sir Thomas Moore ( 1478-1535 ) venerated in the Cathholic Church as Saint Thomas Moore was an English lawyer, philosopher, author, stateman, and noted Renaissance humanist. Moore opposed the Protestant Reformation. He also opposed the king's separation from the Catholic Church, refusing to acknowledge Henry as Head of the Church of England. After refusing  to take the Oath of Supremacy, he was convicted of treason and beheaded. He was canonised in 1935 and Pope John Paul II in 2000 declared him the "Patron of Stateman and Politicians." From 1490 to 1492, Moore served the Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England. Believing that Moore had great potential, the Archbishop nominated him for a place at the University of Oxford. Moore left Oxford after only two years, at his father's insistence, to begin legal training in London. He married Jane Colt in 1505 and he tutored her in music and literature. The couple had three daughters and one son. Moore insisted upon giving his daughters the same classical education as his son, a unusual attitude at the time. His oldest daughter Margaret, attracted much admiration for her fluency in Greek and Latin. Moore 's decision to educate his daughters set an example for other families. Even Erasmus became much more favourable once he witnessed their accomplishments. In 1504 Moore was elected to Parliament to represent Yarmouth, and in 1510 began representing London. He earned a reputation as an honest and effective public servant. In 1514 he was appointed as a Privy Counsellor. In 1521 he became secretary and personal adviser to King Henry VII, Moore became increasingly influential : welcoming diplomats, drafting documents, and serving as a liaison between the King and the Chancellor. In 1525 he became Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with executive and judicial responsibilities over much northern England. Moore's best known and most controversial work, Utopia is a novel written in Latin. Erasmus published the book in 1516, but it was only translated into English and published in his native land in 1551. Utopia contrasts the contentious social life of European states with the perfectly orderly, reasonable social arrangements. Communal ownership supplants private property, men and women are educated alike, and there is religious toleration. Moore may have used the monastic communalism as his model. Utopia gave rise to a literary genre, Utopian and Dystopian fiction, which features ideal societies or their opposite. Having been praised "as a communist hero by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, because of the attitude to property in his book.

                 Thomas Moore entered Parliament in 1504. He strongly opposed the amount of power the king, then Henry VII, held. After pushing for some type of recession of power, Moore's father was arrested and Moore was forced to withdraw from the public eye and pay a fine. When Henry VII died Moore began to take a serious role in politics. Moore refused to sign the Oath of Supremacy, which gave the king, Henry VIII more power than the pope. Moore resigned his office. A year later the king Henry VIII had Moore imprisioned in the Tower of London. During his times Thomas Moore would have been considered a Renaissance man because he didn't limit himself to one particular arena of life. Moore was a politician and a writer, and held numerous positions besides that. Through the many facets of his life, he greatly altered the world during his time, and for future generations. In his writings and his work in politics, he became an example for others. Moore's Utopia changed the face of literature in many ways. It gave authors a new way to express their ideals. It also spawned, or at least facilitated, the movement of literature from pure entertainment to realistic portrayals of society and social conscious in writers. He had a great impact on historical Europe and our world today. He helped spread Christian humanism. He helped England negotiate peace between the religious conflict of Reformation. He gave many politicians at that time the courage to stand against the authoritarianism of the king Henry VIII. He aided our times by developing a new form of literature. 

                Utopia has a quality of universality, as revealed by the fact that it has fascinated readers for five centuries, and has influenced countless writers. The Renaissance age has been styled by many historians, viewing it as a brilliant development in Western civilization. The "classical revival" was at the center of the intellectual and artistic agitation of the age. It involved a realization, or rediscovery, that a very great civilization had flourished in ancient Greece and Rome and a conviction that conscientious study and imitation of that civilization offered the key to new greatness. They acquired a sense of the worth of the individual and of the dignity of man. Growing gradually out of these concepts came the philosophy of humanism and the magnificent achievements in the fine arts.  Italy was unquestionably the fountainhead of Renaissance civilization. As early as the 14th century, men of enlightenment were introducing renaissance concepts. Through most of the 15th century, the achievements were predominantly Italian, but by the beginning of the 16th century the movement was spreading to other countries of Europe. During the century following Utopia, the utopian vogue flourished, set off by the interest which Moore's book generated and given added impetus through the discoveries of new lands and the fascinating and exotic races encountered in those regions. There is a passage in Rabelais's Gargantua that is cited among the celebrated Renaissance descriptions of an idealized society. The society portrayed is confined to a monastery that is regulated in an original and unconventional manner. All of the member are happy because, being exempt from any kind of restrictions or regimantation, they are at liberty to pursue their inclinations and encouraged to develop their talents to their full potential. But the most unconventional feature is the integration of male and female initiates. The members are free to leave it at will and also to marry. The whole idea, which at first strikes the readers as one Rabelais's jests, is discovered to express a fundamental feature of his philosophy. What he is saying is that people are, by nature, good and, if given free scope and encouraged to live full lives, will develop into healthy and bright creatures, full of grace. The early 17th century marks the appearance of several ambitious accounts of utopian societies, the most successsful being: The City of the Sun (1623) by Tommaso Campanella, Christianopolis (1619) by Johann Andreae, and The New Atlantis (1624) by Francis Bacon. Campanella's City of the Sun, are evident the influence of Moore and Plato at many points. The tale is told by a sea captain who has visited an island called Taprobane. In the treatment of education, Campanella reveals himself as a 17th century thinker, placing great emphasis on the study of the sciences, all of the sciences. He has a plan for spreading information on all branches of knowledge through pictures displayed throughout the city walls and in corridors of public buildings. Their leaders believe that the advancement of scientific knowledge is the principal key to the betterment of the human race. The rulers in the City are men of superior intelligence and probity. The head of the government is called Hoh, what means metaphysics. The requisites for the chief are a familiarity with the history of all kingdoms and their governments, a extensive knowledge of all sciences, and a mastery of metaphysics and theology.  H.G.Wells devotes much of his attention to preview of possible future developments of civilization. Among the better known of his publications in that field are: The Time Machine (1895), When the Sleeper Awakes (1899), A Modern Utopia (1905), Men Like Gods (1923), and The Shape of Things to Come (1933). The great society of the future, he believes, will have a worldwide structure, a World State. The entire human race will become one commonwealth and a common language.  Equality for all mankind is not a realistic goal in Wells's view. That, he believes, would mean a loss of individuality, and an inherent requirement of human nature. Similarly, competition is necessary to a thriving society. The optimistic views which the author held regarding inevitable progress of human society were somewhat undermined by the events of World War I, as is demonstrated on his later writings. His warnings of the possibility of developing mind control through blatant advertising and through drugs is prophetic. 

             Thomas Moore's Utopia is in many respects a typical product of Renaissance humanism. It bears all the signs of a humanist interest in the classical languages and forms and like Erasmus de Rotterdam was preoccupied with ancient philosophical views on ethical values. What makes the work even more typical of Renaissance humanism is its concentration on the application of classical ideas to contemporary society and particularly, politics. Behind all their work was the humanist desire for progress. Moore'sw underlying aim, it could be argued, was a concern for public morality and the corruption by mortals of Christian ethics. Moore is an example of such an individual. His writings, his work as both a lawyer and politician and his rise to high office must have created tensions which were peculiar to the era in which he existed.