Plato’s outline of the perfect city, or Kallipolis, unsettles me. I have to admit that in many ways it really does appear perfect. How can we not agree that a society would be far happier if those who were “meant” to rule ruled, those who were “meant” to produce produced, and those who were “meant” to guard guarded. I am of the belief that most people do have a work that satisfies them and makes them more productive than any other work would.
We have to remember, however, that the citizens of the Kallipolis do not choose for themselves what work is best for them. As we discussed in class, Plato organizes his Kallipolis around the “noble lie” that the rulers have gold in their blood, the guardians have silver, and the producers have iron and bronze (415). Plato states that citizens of the Kallipolis must be monitored from birth to determine which blood type they have, and therefore which class they are to belong. Furthermore, the noble lie claims that families will usually remain in the same class from generation to generation (Note that this suggests that reproduction between the classes will not be allowed).
In other words, the Kallipolis is organized into a caste system. Plato even goes so far as to write that “meddling and exchange between these three classes, then, is the greatest harm that can happen to the city and would rightly be called the worst thing someone could do to it”(434b). As all of us know, especially from our teenage years, people don’t much like being told what to do by supposed “authorities.” Thus, I find it hard to believe that many citizens of the Kalipolis, except perhaps for the rulers, would feel satisfied with their caste. A necessary part of finding one’s “calling” in life is the extensive search that precedes the discovery.
But the repulsion I feel toward the Kallipolis goes deeper than that. What this restriction of personal choice boils down to is a limiting of individual agency. Every citizen in the Kallipolis, even the rulers, is being used as a means for the end of achieving civil order. It is this valuing people as means rather than as individual ends in themselves that so disturbs me.
Granted, we all use each other for various means every day. After all, the use of others is, in many ways, a basis of capitalism, and this is especially true in the case of our service economy. We use our political representatives, we use our coaches and teammates, we use our professors, and hopefully some of you will use me and what I’m claiming here to write comments. So why does this not upset me? The difference is that all of these people have likely chosen to put themselves into these positions. By using these people we validate their positions in society and the choices they have made to get there.
Of course, this is not the case with everyone we use. What about Rhodes housekeeping, or the Aramark staff who serve us lunch? Did they chose the work they do because they find it satisfying? Possibly, but many of them probably found these jobs because they were not able to do whatever it is that they feel is their calling. (This is not to suggest that such work is below us, because it certainly isn’t. Nevertheless, anyone who has worked as a cashier, waitress, or a similar service job knows that the work is usually mind-numbing and makes one feel like a means to other peoples' ends). The people who form the backbone of our service economy, even here at Rhodes, are likely in these positions, at least in part, because they were born into a particular social and economic class. That’s right, American society is NOT classless and it never was.
I’ll stop here before I get carried away into a rant, but I do want to ask what you guys think about this. Are the citizens of the Kallipolis used only as means? If they are, do the ends justify it, or is it never ethically permissible to use others as means? Can we live, work, and play within our existing classed society without treating service workers as a means to our ends? I look forward to your responses.
Colin
A lot of different topics were mentioned here in your post. Many ‘lengthy’ essays can be written about these topics, and many discussions could be had, so let me focus on the main question of the post: “Are the citizens of the Kallipolis used only as means? If they are, do the ends justify it, or is it never ethically permissible to use others as means?”
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you are already answered your own question. We use people everyday as a means to an end, you yourself explained (better than I could) exactly how we do that. So no, I do not think that it is “never ethically permissible to use others as means.” Now let’s go back to Kallipolis. You mentioned several things that bothered you about the idea of such a city: the noble lie, the caste system, the inability to intermix between classes, and the use of citizens as means (you probably had some more in there that I may not have caught). Because each of these topics could be discussed at length, and because one level or another, they are all somewhat related, I will only focus on the latter.
You gave a description of the use of others as a means to an end in Kallipolis, and you did the same for the people in our community today, and though you realized that in both community the use of others as a mean to an end is present, you noted that the difference is in the choice of the individuals in those societies. (I know I am repeating a lot of what you said, but this is just so that you can see my thoughts processes, and maybe correct me, if I seem to misunderstand one of your statements.)
Choice, is the difference you note between the two. But the truth is, the individuals in both societies do have choice. Kallipolis can only exist if the people living in it choose to do so, and to abide by the rules. They in a way, sign a form of “social contract” with each other (which is the use of each other), promising to abide by the rules and regulations, in order to live in a community free of worry, suffering, and injustices (which is the end goal).
I am sure that Plato (or Socrates) was not the only person to think of such a place. In fact each one of us has probably imagine what a perfect world would look like, and I am sure that for many of us, as it was in my case, this world is very similar to kallipolis: the wise rule, the guardians protect, and the skilled each do what they do best to contribute. But why hasn’t this become a reality, it is because, as you so rightly pointed out, many citizens living in kallipolis would find the conditions unsatisfying. And due to the inexistence of such a city, I can say that citizens have chosen not to part of such a society.
Nellie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for such a detailed comment! I agree with you that a society like the Kallipolis has not been realized because too few people, if any, have chosen to create it.
I differ from you, however, in my understanding of choice in the Kallipolis. I don't think it's fair to say that the citizens of the Kallipolis have chosen to enter a social contract which places them in certain castes. The "Noble Lie" claims that some citizens are just better than others, and Socrates even speaks of training people from youth to be in certain castes. Under these conditions, the citizens of the Kallipolis aren't making rational choices, they're being brainwashed into believing in the system.
Your original post questions whether the citizens of Kallipolis are means to the end of a just society. However, if it is safe to assume that most citizens want justice, aren't the citizens both the means and the end? If we grant that Plato is correct in asserting that each individual fulfilling his proper societal function results in justice, then each citizen of Kallipolis is working to their own end, since a just society benefits every law-abiding person.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to comment on the status of the three classes, a subject you discussed in your post. I agree that there are very clear divisions between the three groups. As you point out, Plato writes that "meddling and exchange between these three classes" should be prohibited. However, the structure of Kallipolis does not seem to entail a higher standard of living or greater material wealth for the "higher" classes. Elsewhere in the Republic (sorry to deviate from the assigned selections), Plato states about the guardians that "In the first place, none must possess any private property save the indispensable. Secondly, none must have any habitation or treasure-house which is not open for all to enter at will" (416d). This passage describes the lives of the guardians, who make up two of the three classes: the auxiliaries and the philosopher-kings.
These two groups might enjoy greater prestige than their producer counterparts, so perhaps the "caste" label is acceptable. But we should keep in mind that Plato does not envision their privileged status resulting in material wealth. If we do apply the "upper-class" label to the guardians, our concept of upper-class wealth competes with what Plato describes.
Mills,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. When using the term "caste" I did not mean that the citizens would be organized into economic class, although I can see how the second half of my post may have suggested that. You are right to point out that there would not be much in the way of economic class in the Kallipolis. Nevertheless, I still feel that many citizens would find the caste system onerous and oppressive.