While reading and discussing our selection of Plato’s Republic, one of the ideas that captured my attention was his parallel structures for both the ideal just society and the ideal just individual. He details a highly structured system in which each person has their own specific task and it is that task alone that they should do.
In American society today, we aren’t quite as open to the idea of a single ruler (or even a small committee of rulers) inflicting their decisions upon our lives for no greater reason than that they were born to do so, no matter how wise or well-meaning they may claim to be. In fact, we’re rather attached to the democratic ideal that no matter who we are or what our role In life is, we still have the right and the duty to exercise control over our society.
All this made me consider what our world would be like if we too expected the ideal person to reflect the structure of the ideal society, in our case democracy. Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if every cell of your body had an equal vote in all the choices and decisions you make every day, with every toe cell casting his vote only for the best interest of the toes, without any regard for the good of the ear lobe or the bicep or the good of the body as a whole. Ultimately, all decisions would fall to whatever suited the largest body part’s needs, and personally, I wouldn’t want to live in a body where all my decisions reflected the will of my skin. Extending this rather ridiculous metaphor, how would you handle it if your brain took a week long hiatus to hit the campaign trail? Personally, I would live probably in fear that one of my underrepresented organs like a kidney might try to secede!
I realize that this analogy is completely absurd, especially in comparison to Plato’s logical discussion of the ideal individual and society, but I think the impossibility of democracy on an individual level also points out some of its weaknesses on a societal level, especially the potential it leaves for widespread injustice. History has shown repeatedly, on issues ranging from race equality and segregation to women’s suffrage, that the will of the self-interested majority is often contrary to the common good. It is simply the largest and loudest voice that is heard, rather than the voice of truth and reason. This loudest voice will certainly coincide with the common good in cases where a just policy makes life safer and easier for the majority (for example, the prohibition of murder and theft), but in cases where it does not serve the majority’s immediate interests to protect the powerless minority, justice is sure to be neglected. Clearly, democracy is not without its perks, but if one of the goals of a reasonable society is justice for all, democracy seems like quite the inefficient way to achieve it.
-Stephanie Kasper
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn your post you mention several breaches of justice in democratic societies, such as race and gender inequality. It might be worth noting that Plato had his own grievances with democracy. His teacher Socrates was executed by democratic Athens.
ReplyDeleteClearly, democracies are capable of committing unjust acts. You may be correct in saying that democracy is an inefficient way of forming a just society. However, I would argue that democracy is more conducive to justice than the system Plato imagines in the Republic.
The greatest problem I can identify with Plato's system is the concentration of power in the hands of the few. Even if the first generation of rulers sincerely had the best interests of their state at heart, no amount of education or brainwashing could ensure that succeeding generations of philosopher-kings remained benevolent.
Furthermore, democracy (especially the Athenian form of democracy, where every citizen had a voice and a vote in the government) has the advantage of incorporating the concerns of each group and individual. This does not mean that we can ignore the problem of the "tyranny of the majority," but we can at least be sure that minority groups have a voice in government. This is more than can be said for the philosopher-king system. Expecting a small collection of wise monarchs to be able to take everyone's problems into account is an unreasonable expectation.
Because democracy allows political input from a wider array of groups and individuals, I think it is more reasonable to expect democracy to yield more justice over time than the system imagined in Plato's Republic.
P.S. I removed my comment above because the post didn't give my full name. I've reposted my comment word-for-word.
While democracy seems to be a very inefficient means to justice, its allowance for failure is in fact one of its strengths.
ReplyDeleteA democratic structure of society allows an individual an opportunity not granted to those of Plato's Republic: the opportunity to fail. In failing, the individual learns and is able to grow, which allows him to become a more complete person. Thus, in failing, one grows closer to balancing the three components of the soul and becoming an ideal person. The individual is able to strive to be ideal, instead of simply being granted an ideal (or not ideal) soul, as Plato would have.
When one is able to fail, his successes seem all the more significant. If one "finds his calling," he can take pride in having known himself well enough to choose the ideal career and as a result will feel a stronger attachment to this career as it was chosen, not assigned.
Overall, while democracy may lead to a less ideal society, I'd argue that it leads to a more ideal individual.
Mills,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your suggestion that one of the biggest weaknesses of Plato's society is the rulers. Finding truly benevolent leaders would pose an incredible, if not insurmountable challenge. Although many social structures look reasonable and just in theory, the inherent flaws of human nature introduce kinks in every one of them, from Plato's Republic to democracy to communism. It is tough to determine whether the single extraordinary ruler demanded for a just version of Plato's model or an entire society of community-minded individuals that a truly just democracy would need would be more feasible. Admittedly, neither is very likely, and when you plug average humans into the roles of society, you are probably right that a democratic society would be closer to the ideal of justice overall. I just wanted to question the faith we generally put in democracy and wonder if there might be a better system (neither democracy nor Plato's system) that would provide a more direct path to justice.