Plato (427-348 BC) lived in Ancient Greece at
the time when Greece was comprised of many city-states (Poleis) which were ever
waging wars against each other and conflicting internally. Life at this time,
according to Plato, was so unwarranted that anything could happen to one at any
time. With the flow of the current affairs, Plato bid to develop an ideal society
where the current trend of Plato’s time had no place.
What was Plato’s ideal society?
Well, according to Plato’s current time’s biology and
psychological theories. There was a similarity between society and an
individual. The society was nothing except “the individual writ large",
meaning the society was a true reflection of individuals in that society, and
the difference between the two was only of size. So, for Plato to answer what
an ideal society is, it is ideal to know what an ideal individual is.
And according to Plato’s time, an individual was made of body and soul, and for
this individual to be ideal, they must be both ‘healthy
psychologically and physically. It is easy to determine ‘physical health’ as it is the absence of illness, but for ‘psychological health’, Plato suggested that to determine it would require dividing the soul into the rational
element (ability to reason), spirited element (ability to be a
coward or courageous) and appetitive element (ability to desire) and
further Plato claimed that when these elements functioned harmoniously
then an individual is ‘psychologically healthy’. Consequently, Plato claimed the
same applies to society since it is the “individual writ large" where the virtues
in an ideal individual’s soul align with the virtues of the classes in
his society.
I.
The first class:
they have a virtue of wisdom (gold) of which they are rational and capable of being rulers.
II.
The second class:
they are courageous (silver) because they are bold or spirited and ready to
defend their society thus, they are capable of being warriors.
III.
The third class: they have the virtue of temperance (bronze) of which they are appetitive
(they want things and are content to work to produce things) and are capable of
being producers or artisans.
If these classes work harmoniously, then
just like the ideal individual, such a society becomes an ideal society.
Who should rule the ideal society?
According to Plato, the Aristocrats should rule. By aristocrats, Plato meant “the rule by the best”. This group was comprised only of intellectuals who were specifically and specially trained to rule the society with absolute authority. These Aristocrats, in other words, were referred to as Philosopher-kings.
How were the Aristocrats or
Philosopher-kings chosen and trained?
Plato gave specific instructions for selecting rulers
and ensuring that, once chosen, they would not use their power for personal
gain, so for Plato, it was fundamental that all children are raised communally
to age 7.
1.
At age 7 there was elementary education,
where the children were subjected to three-part physical and intellectual tests
to separate them into rulers, artisan and warriors, and these tests took two
years to complete. Individuals who passed these exams would be carefully
isolated for additional training, which would encompass physical, mental, and
moral training up to the age of twenty.
2.
At age 20 there was higher education,
where those who passed the elementary education would be subjected to most
intellectual subjects, e.g., sciences that deal with idealized figures like
mathematics, geometry, solid geometry, astronomy and harmonics to prepare them
for the abstract thinking necessary for their subsequent study of philosophy
and the grasp of the exact or rational knowledge of the good life. Plato argued
that studying philosophy would help one to know the good, and this can help
them make the best decisions for society.
3.
At age 35 there was practical training
for those who passed higher education as they were appointed as
administrators of lower ranks and less authority and put under strict observation and scrutiny.
Individuals who
failed to pass any of the above phases were dismissed as potential rulers. But
those that did, took up active management of the society with absolute
authority and a communal lifestyle.
How did Plato justify the ruler’s absolute
authority?
In order to justify the ruler's absolute authority, Plato
argued that “ruling is a skill” that Plato's philosopher-kings were trained to
have. Just like the way doctors are trained for a long time in the art of
diagnosing and healing patients. Rulers should also be trained to rule. Imagine
an untrained individual advising on a surgical operation or rather being
prescribed medications by an untrained individual. Yes, it will be disastrous. The
same applies to awarding an untrained individual leadership.
What are Plato’s views on other forms of
government?
Plato’s views were purely anti-democratic as his ideal
form of governance was ‘a rule for the people but not by the people. According
to Plato, the philosopher-kings would know what is best for people just as the
doctors know what is best for a patient regardless of their opinion.
Criticism of Plato
1.
Plato claimed that ruling is a skill as
compared to medicine is false as ruling cannot be reduced to science in the way
medicine is. The ruling involves aggregating the interest of the people to come
up with collective inclusive policies while prescribing by a doctor is
independent of the patient’s wishes.
2.
Plato suggested that rulers can learn the
absolute standards of goodness, but “such knowledge is unattainable” by anyone,
thus the Ruler should not impose a standard on the citizenry but rather make
the condition favourable enough to make it possible for them to live together
in regards to their individual standards.
3.
Plato argued that leaders should be given
absolute authority, but as proven in the history of tyranny, power corrupts
and, in the words of Lord Acton as cited by Popkin’s and Strolls (1972), “power
corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
4. Plato argued that the philosopher-kings are trained to know what is best and fair for the citizenry, thus there are infallible judges, but modern democratic suppose “no one is infallible". We all make mistakes as human beings, no one should make mistakes on our behalf, we should make mistakes on our own so that we learn from them.
Check out the next Political philosopher on 'Who should rule' question: Thomas Hobbes here
Adapted from:
Popkin, R.H & Stroll, A. (1972). Introduction to
philosophy. 2 ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Reference
Popkin, R.H & Stroll, A. (1972). Introduction to
philosophy. 2 ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston