Friday, September 19, 2014
Expertise or Popularity?
Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Plato, through Socrates voices his opinion on what people in particular should rule. Socrates, who is highly biased I must say, advocates that philosophers are the ones who should rule. Socrates opens his argument saying,
ReplyDeleteUnless communities have philosophers as kings, or the people who are currently called kings, and rulers practise philosophy with enough integrity—in other words, unless political power and philosophy coincide, and all the people with their diversity of talents who currently head in different directions towards either government or philosophy have those doors shut firmly in their faces—there can be no end to political troubles (193)
In a less strict tone, Socrates adds that his theory that every ruler should at least THINK philosophically. He should seek the truth and justice in all facets of a government. I would agree with Socrates argument that every ruler should at least think like a philosopher and consider every outcome of his decisions, but I do not believe that every ruler has to be a philosopher. I don't believe this is exactly what Plato meant through Socrates as that is a strict interpretation, but I believe this is one of the strongest points Plato makes throughout the novel. As he continues, the ultimate theme of morality appears once again. He argues that only philosophers have morality, but again I disagree. It's not only philosophers that have morality and act with morality, but they are the ones who seek the true meaning of morality.
Plato criticizes democracy arguing that the chosen people from society are elected due to their popularity amongst the people, yet are most frequently not the most fit for the job or the most knowledgeable in surrounding factors of land. Plato believes that philosophers are the ones fit to rule because they are the most knowledgeable and therefore would do the best job in leading their people. I see truth in Plato’s message. We as people like to ignore issues in society and approve of electing people that can mask the trouble in order to create a mirage that everything will be okay. Although this might be beneficial for the short term, in the long term it will only cause problems to become bigger and more devastating for society. Most voters are not aware of the current economic situation of their state and therefore should have no right in electing the person that will supposedly “fix” these issues. We as people tend to pick those that will benefit us in particular rather than the state as a whole. As Americans, we are raised to believe that democracy is the bright light that all countries must chase after, yet there are many holes that cause problems for an orderly systematic government to be upheld. The issues with democracy are that it does not allow the person who will indeed do the best job ruling to be chosen, as well as creating a scenario in which masking troubles in the economy can be a good thing. The reason Plato rates democracy so low on the list is because it gives people easy access for their own personal desires instead of the common good, every man has a natural inclination to think of themselves first and democracy is the easiest way to do so.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePlato argues that in his ideal state that the rulers should be experts, specifically philosophers, rather than simply whoever is most popular among the community. Plato has a lot of points going for him as well, and makes a pretty convincing argument. Plato says that, “unless political power and philosophy coincide, and all the people with their diversity of talents who currently head in different directions…there can be no end to political troubles…or even to human troubles in general” (473d). This makes some sense as he argues that a true philosopher’s knowledge and expertise lies in goodness and morality, therefore this philosopher king would lead the community in the direction of being moral. While this all sounds nice and like a perfect society, in reality the trouble is that there are very few, if any, true philosophers who fill the role that Plato describes. An objection is brought up that most philosophers are either useless or have been corrupted with politics and money, which brings in a separate argument as to if politics corrupts philosophers, then making them rulers wouldn’t work, but we can get to that later. Even philosophers are human and therefore aren’t perfect. The idea of the Ring of Gyges still exists for all philosophers whether they choose to admit it or not and because of that, it is impossible to say that simply because someone is a philosopher that they would only lead in the name of morality and knowledge is somewhat absurd. Adding on to that, no philosopher that you would put to power is necessarily a “true” philosopher, and who is and isn’t a true philosopher is a completely different, and subjective, issue. Overall, when thinking about an ideal state where there is ruling by expertise through philosopher kings, the idea sounds nice, but the setback is the feasibility of the idea.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Plato is correct that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, democracy is still the best system of government because it is the most stable. To analyze the best system of government, one must first analyze the purpose of government. Due to the fact that Plato never even considers anarchy as a viable governing system, government seems to exist for the purpose of eliminating as much chaos as possible. Plato favors his autocratic republic because it rules based on morality, and is the most stable in his eyes. However, Plato assumes that everyone who lives in his republic will accept their role even if they play a relatively small part such as a laborer or craftsmen. He assumes that everyone will behave the way they are expected to. Although Plato ignores the possibility of a rebellion as the downfall of his autocratic government, he does identify one way that his government may crumble. Plato says through Socrates that guardians will “pair men and women sexually on the wrong occasions, and the resulting children will not be naturally gifted or fortunate” (Plato 281). Plato goes on to say that even the best of these children “won’t be as good as they should be” (Plato 281). Then the society will devolve into timarchy, where instead of morality, money is the most important. Devolution into timarchy seems to be the best case scenario. Plato never acknowledges that when castes mix and there are no longer experts as rulers, anarchy may occur. Despite Plato’s opinion that democracy is close to utter chaos and only one step above dictatorship, democracy is a much safer system of government because it does not fall as easily as an autocracy. In referring to the fall of democracy into dictatorship Socrates says through Plato, “it gets drunk on excessive quantities of undiluted freedom, and then, I suppose, unless the rulers are very lenient and keep it provided with plenty of freedom, it accuses them of being foul oligarchs and punishes them” (Plato 303). Plato makes the assumption that democracy is unable to regulate the amount of freedom people experience. Yet as we can see today in governments like that of the United States, people can have all types of freedom and opportunities, but still accept reasonably laws that govern society. Regardless of whether Plato’s system is more moral than democracy, it is longevity that matters because the ultimate failure is anarchy. It is better to have a democratic society that can keep order for centuries, than an arguably more moral autocracy that can only keep order for a few generations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Plato’s point that rulers should be knowledgeable, but to believe that they all-knowing by thinking like philosophers is not realistic proposition. Being a perfect leader would require expertise of almost if not everything, which could never be given to one person alone. Having a group of experts, however, seems like a much more reasonable alternative; collective knowledge is much greater than individual knowledge. We do have this system in our democracy in the United States; the President has many advisers and experts he can go to for information and assessments on certain matters. Unfortunately, even experts don’t know everything in their respective fields, so having a leadership that can always make the right decision cannot exist in reality.
ReplyDeleteThis merely establishes the fact that having a philosopher king is not a perfect way to govern. When compared to democracy, I think that Plato is right in that expertise is more important than popularity. I’d rather have an expert leader than a popular leader; his/her ability to make the right decisions is more important than whether I (or the people of the society) like him/her or not. Leaders should be judged solely on their ability to lead and their track record of decision making, and those who have fared well should be our leaders.
My problem with Plato’s argument is that he believes that the ordinary people have no idea what’s good for them. I think that many leaders are distant from certain communities that they govern and are ignorant of issues going on there. The people familiar with those issues should be able to affect change within their own communities because the leader, especially one of a large, powerful country, won’t have time to get to it. This is why I think that democracy isn’t so much worse than the autocracy Plato advocates for. I think people do know more than Plato gives them credit for; he says that they “…wander is the midst of plurality and variety, are not lovers of knowledge…” which makes it seem like philosophers are the only ones with knowledge, which is not true. This insulting statement about the common people of the community dismisses any ideas that could potentially be helpful, which limits in turn the wellbeing of the whole nation. This is the way I think that democracy is better than an autocracy; the people are allowed a voice which can aid the society, whereas in an autocracy, only one person can make the decision.
I believe that Plato is correct in saying that democracy, and specifically democratic voting, leads to leaders being chosen out of popularity and not skill. Even if a person is skilled in their craft, the results of an election are inherently based on some sort of popularity. Winners win because the most number of people liked them; they are popular. This fact does not necessarily taint the skill of the winner. After all, if people were voting on which carpenter they wanted to build something or which doctor they wanted to care for them, we would assume that the popular choice would almost certainly be the one who was more skilled. However, personal preference could interfere with the most successful result being chosen, an issue which is presented in the hypothetical sailor situation that Plato comes up with: “In any case, they all maintain that it isn’t something that can be taught, and are ready to butcher anyone who says it is. They are forever crowding closely around the owner, pleading with him and stopping at nothing to get him to entrust the rudder to them.” (488b-c). If the majority of people are not knowledgeable about what it means to be better, or their personal motives interfere with their better judgment, it is certainly possible for the popular decision to not be the wisest; and this issue arises in a simple decision. In Plato's discussion of democracy, a leader is being voted on, and a leader in Plato's mind needs to have a rare and often unpopular set of skills, leading to a much more complicated decision process. This means that the issues that would arise from a simple democratic vote would be drastically compounded when democratically voting on a leader, and the resulting leader would most likely be one who “has nothing absolutely authentic to contemplate and use as a reference-point, before establishing human norms of right, morality, and goodness, and before guarding and protecting the norms that have already been established” (484d). If such an unfit leader were appointed, it would cause serious problems for the society.
ReplyDeleteI side with Plato not only because I believe that his fundamental argument is sound but also because I have witnessed the flaws within America’s democratic system. Like in the sailor story, man Americans are unaware of what is truly best for them, and cannot possibly comprehend anything further than their current knowledge no matter how much contrary information they are told. Some are even unable to understand the notion that facts cannot be disputed by opinion, as is the case with global warming, where—according to a recent Yale survey— 23% of Americans still don’t believe in it. And while these false personal beliefs are an issue, the far more egregious problems arise from the effects that these beliefs have on the rest of people of the country. Unknowledgeable voting, especially at the local and state levels, can lead to unqualified, unskilled men and women winning government positions. One such example is ex-Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, who garnered a significant following even though she was sorely lacking in several attributes one would require from a good leader. The issues continue, and the list grows even more extensive when all democratic nations, not just the United States, are taken into consideration. Although as an American it is difficult for me to completely forego the concept of democracy, for me the evidence against it is too damning for it to be considered the highest form of government.
In order to truly analyze whether or not a democracy is truly beneficial to everyone involved, one must first look at the two options that Plato puts forward. In order to do this, one must think about what the world would be like if a state actually instituted Plato’s form of government, one based on merit and expertise and not by a popular vote. By using this model of government, one should be able to apply it to real world scenarios and analyze whether it would work. By doing this, it becomes easier to see if Plato’s form of government is viable or not.
ReplyDeleteBeginning with Plato’s analysis of a government ruled by a Philosopher, it is clear that he places the theory of a perfect philosophy over the reality of the situation. Plato contends that, by definition, a philosopher is someone who is truly in touch with what is good and should be able to make the right decisions. Immediately, an issue arises insofar as Plato assumes that such a person exists. It is hard to imagine a person who always knows what is truly good. At the point where the ruler that Plato talks about is so rare, his notion of government immediately falls through. However, forgetting the impossibility of such a ruler, let’s see what would happen if such a ruler was found and placed into power. Plato himself concedes to the notion that philosophers are considered nuisances in his society. If such a man was placed into power, outrage would emerge among his subjects. Thus, even if his decisions were perfect and completely moral, no one would listen to them due to their human nature. Thus, Plato’s form of government cannot possibly form when the people have a predisposition of hating philosophers. This is the key fault to Plato’s argument insofar as his form of government would never be able to be created, even if a perfect philosopher were to be found.
Plato continues to argue that if a philosopher king were to emerge, then all of the problems of the people would be solved. He specifically states that “Unless communities have philosopher kings…there can be no end to political troubles” (473d). The philosopher king should be placed into a dire scenario and analyzed in order to see if Plato is correct. By using global warming as a scenario, Plato’s second argument about a philosopher king being able to solve any scenario can be resolved. If a philosopher king was placed into the situation of global warming, assuming the people listen to him, he would not be able to make any actual impact. Just like the global warming policies of today, the policies of the philosopher king would barely mitigate the effect of global warming. If the king were to pass any serious legislature, such as mandatory busing, he would face the outrage of his people due to the inconvenience that the king placed in the lives of his subjects. This is why the notion of merely one expert being placed into power is ludicrous. One person cannot make an impactful decision that pleases the majority of his subjects. Instead, a group of experts must be brought together in order to make a decision that will have some impact while also pleasing the majority of their subjects. The only way they will know how to please their subjects is if the subjects themselves vote them into office. By being elected into office, the official will be able to understand the wishes of his subjects. A democracy is the only way to create a policy that will have an impact while also pleasing the people of the state since multiple elected officials with expertise can come together to make a comprehensive decision.
Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, while expertise is required in a good government. Plato says, “this political system…doesn’t care what kinds of provenance people had before coming to government; as long as someone claims to be sympathetic to the general populace, he is honoured within this political system” (558b). Plato argues that a government that’s leaders are chosen based off their popularity and will not be able to acquire the principles that are the formula for a good government.
ReplyDeleteI think that Plato’s argument that democracy rewards popularity applies to some democratic decisions, for example a middle school student voting for student council, but when it comes to the election of leaders who will make decisions for the community an election is not completely based off popularity. Plato assumes that all voters will make their decision based off the candidates that are considered the “popular decision” to become their leaders. Plato’s assumption disregards the importance of an election, in current democracies, such as the United States, people vote based off on who they believe can best lead the country to have the most success.
Another argument that Plato makes it that the citizens do not hold the proper expertise to run a country, as evidenced by his analogy of the boat. He says that it is necessary to have an experienced captain, instead of an inexperienced crew. Plato’s argument assumes that the democracy will not be able to function, because it does not have a philosopher king to properly run the country. The flaw in this argument is that he assumes the people in the democracy will not know how to run the country. If you look to democracies such as the United States, one powerful ruler is not necessary, because the people elected have different strengths. Certain people are elected based off their knowledge of politics, economics, war, etc. When people vote they will vote these people in based off their different strengths. By having an assortment of strengths you are able to from a well-rounded government body that can make the best decisions for the community.
Plato claims that expertise will always be better that Popularity in running a government. He in fact ranks Democracy as the second worst form of government over Tyranny. He reached this conclusion many hypothetical situations and logical assumptions. Plato’s main argument of experience over popularity is that the people that are needed do not step up to the task. He claims that people can simply pander to their audience and not truly support their cause “as long as someone claims to be sympathetic to the general populace, he is honored within this political system”. This is vastly different and vastly inferior to his perfect philosopher king world of only those who can make the right decisions are allowed to. But, Democracy has its positive sides to which even Plato acknowledges “ Its probably the most gorgeous political system there is”. A perfect democracy should reflect the majority, making decisions based on the feelings of the people. These people, whom Plato deems worthy or unworthy get a deciding vote. Plato claims that the majority of people are too ignorant or corrupt to have power, but when something falls into their best interest they will vote for it. In a perfect democracy it simply takes time until the majority of the people swing into a decision. So, when a truly good cause comes up, it will slowly have to spread through the people, and eventually convince enough to back it. Even though this process is slow, the steady overturning of votes allows a true democracy a consistent process where a topic can be evaluated, instead of a rush to a decision by one or few. This consistency allows for foolhardy ideas to be shot down, and is worth the slow adaption to good ideas
ReplyDeleteIn the Republic, Plato criticizes democracy as a form of government. His critique is founded in the idea that democratically elected leaders are not the most competent. First, he takes issue with the fact that “you’re not forced to hold political office…even if you’d be good at it” (557e). In Plato’s view, he believes that people who are good at ruling must rule. Second, Plato condemns the process for choosing leaders. He claims that since democracy is essentially a popularity contest, democracy “doesn’t care what kinds of provenance people had before coming to government; as long as someone claims to be sympathetic to the general populace, he is honoured within this political system” (558b). Here, Plato’s critique is that the democratically elected leaders simply need to be popular with the people in order to be rewarded.
ReplyDeleteThere are several issues with Plato’s argument, that the competent leaders should be forced to become leaders. First, the claim that good leaders should be forced to lead seems rather dubious. Presumably, every individual ought to have some level of autonomy over their lives which would extend to the jobs that people take. If this were not the case then it would seem that a tyranny is justifiable because slavery and rights violations wouldn’t matter if people didn’t have autonomy to violate in the first place. However, this conclusion seems unacceptable since intuitively all people have some level of worth. Additionally, even Plato himself concludes that tyranny is the worst form of government as “there’s no one more immoral”(576b) than tyrants. Therefore, it is apparent that we ought not force people to take jobs such as public office in order for us to maintain the sanctity of their autonomous selves. Second, even if we should force competent leaders to rule, it is unclear what the criteria for a competent leader are, how people are deemed to be competent, and by whom and how would the leader be determined. These issues are particularly interesting because the implication would be that Plato’s model of forcing the best leader to become leader would bring us back to the original question of the best government as it would essentially devolve to what the best leader or government would be. Even if we accept that we should force people to be leaders then the process is unclear. It might be plausible that the best leader is a leader who follows the wishes of her or his constituents, but then this political system would devolve to democracy.
Plato’s second argument, that democracy favors the popular, falls into similar pit falls. First, it is likely that people’s votes favors towards those who are competent at leading. Plato seems to think that the elected leader will be one who is sympathetic to the general populace. However, if this is the case then there would be nothing that truly sets one candidate apart from another other than the candidate’s ability to lead. In this case democracy would actually elect the most competent leaders. Second, it might be the case that the best leader is one that the populace favors. Since governments and nations are born out of the general will of the people as the people are what gives the government importance, it would follow that the government ought to do what is consistent with the general will of the people. From this view, democracy would yield the best leaders who fulfill the purpose of the government.
I think that Plato is right when he says that expertise is essential for a good government because the leaders that make-up the government have to be skilled and have an understanding of what they are doing while they are in charge. The flaw in Plato’s argument is that democracy is a type of government in which popularity is prized before expertise. I would have to disagree with this statement because democracy is a form of government in which the knowledgeable rulers lead the people, yet the people still have a say in what happens and in what is decided in the greater good of the whole community. While it may be true that the citizens of the community are virtually ignorant to things such as global warming and economic recovery, they are not the ones that make the final decisions. The ones that make the final decisions are well aware of these problems and they understand how to go about fixing them. With this being said, the problem of democracy lies not with the lack of the leaders’ knowledge or expertise, nor does it depend on the role popularity plays on the citizens of the community. Also, democracy’s fault is not the ignorance of the people that are ruled by the government. Plato’s argument that democracy is flawed because he thinks that it admires popularity more than expertise, which is not true, is inaccurate because democracy has been thriving for several years now due to the expertise that the leaders of the government hold.
ReplyDelete