A post-scarcity utopia is an inherently immoral ideal to try to achieve.
Solving the central economic problem of "Unlimited desires, limited resources to fulfill those desires" in a utopia would mean that we can enact free effort/work. Whether it comes to the extreme abundance in America that is backed by networks of unpaid Central American farmers and East Asia sweatshops, or Communist work quotas and gulags, Utopian ideals in the real world, where free work/effort is impossible, are reliant on slavery.
Some people point to technology as the answer for moral free labor, but ignoring the dangers of growing automation and unchecked technology for existential reasons, how long until human desire continues to grow and requires more complex robots to support us, and until we start creating things analogous to sapient creations? All the way up back to the square one; Slavery. Utopian abundance relies on it.
The ideological and opinion factor of Utopian also turns up similar issues. What should be done with people who break rules and laws in it? Is it just assumed that anyone viewing a utopia will be instantly awestruck enough to conform?
If they're enforced, it can be assumed that any level of punishment can be justified. Punishment systems exist to push people in the correct direction, if you have a 100% soundproof moral system, then NO amount of punishment would ever be unjustified when propping up Utopian perfect ideals. That might work and be okay for "rule breakers", but what about those that want to do things that are just morally grey within the Utopian laws? How would those be decided? A moral council would lead to subjectivity, and when enforcing perfect moral laws, adding layers of subjectivity ruins the point. Putting in an absolute moral framework is still going to lead to people finding loopholes, whether maliciously or by random chance.
Okay, so what if instead the moral framework was omniscient, and could always reinforce itself? That framework having every single possible scenario and clause that will ever happen likely mean that it would've had to have been made with FUTURE sins in mind, meaning that whoever IS going to sin, always was going to.
And what about people who just simply disagree with the Utopian ideals? Is it immoral to disagree with a system, that at least within itself, considers itself perfect? Is that subversion, and the thought-traitor is just as guilty as the murderer and the rapist? If it's nPost too long. Click here to view the full text.