Sunday, November 14, 2010
Plato v. Mill: The Democratic Citizen
For Mill, only in a liberal state can a person fully develop capacities for thinking and deliberation. Only when citizens have the opportunity for choice do they develop into true thinkers and moral agents. For Plato, the democratic individual is free to pursue whatever he wants -- but that is the problem. Following his or her whims, free to pursue any activity regardless of his abilities, the democratic citizen is destined for unhappiness and lost potential. Who is right? What could either point toward in our American society as evidence for his point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The flaw in Plato's argument is that he is assuming people will act a certain way just because they have freedom. This misanthropic viewpoint is easily solved for when considering Mill's view of individuality. Simply put, if people can't handle freedom, it's because they're not used to it. Mill's argument is that people will learn how to use freedom once they have freedom. By being forced to make choices, people learn which choices are the right one's and develop into people fully capable of making their own decisions. The fact that very few of Plato's claims about democratic citizens have come true only proves this point. For instance, Plato claims that a democratic citizen would be so overwhelmed by freedom that he would switch jobs almost daily, yet most people in our democratic society have very stable careers.
ReplyDeletePlato's criticisms of democracy also fail to account for how to solve the problem. Mill understands that, even if we accept that it is possible to limit someone's freedom for his good, we don't know when this is the case, and thinking otherwise is what Mill calls for an assumption of infallibility. Plato assumes that just because someone has studied philosophy, he will have such an astute understanding of human nature and morality that he will be able to discern when it is best to limit someone's freedom. This is exactly the kind of assumption of infallibility Mill refers to.
In my opinion Plato isn't neccesarily right because his argument is one that would only work if he knew what people were going to do with their freedom and since he has no way of knowing that his argument fails. The other flaw is that he is assuming that with freedom people will make bad decisions that will eventually lead them to an unhappy life. I do not believe that freedom causes people to make bad decisions and it seems like that is what Plato is getting at. I mean if you look at today's society we as individuals have the freedom to do certain things within limits (laws) and while some choose to abuse that freedom not all people do. More people abide my the laws that we have set in place in our society then those that break them. In Plato's mind that freedom is to much to give to a person and that is just something that I don't agree with. I definitely think that Mill makes a valid argument simply because he gives lots of reasoning whereas Plato doesn't really give much reasoning. I agree that freedom is what shapes us as individuals. i think that when we have freedom then we are able to learn and form our own opinions which gives us the unique qualities that we posess. Like in todays society I think that even though my have freedom within limits that it still is enough freedom for us to be who we are. We also have that freedom to mess up and make mistakes and honesty i think that is another things that shapes us into the people that we are. Unlike Plato i don't think that those bad decisions or choices that we make lead us to an unhappy life. In my mind making those mistakes and learning from them is what helps us as people to make better decisions which I would think would lead us down the road to a happy life.
ReplyDeleteAll in all I believe that Mill makes a lot more sense then Plato. I've always felt that Plato writes assuming that his readers will be philosophers and to me that is were he went wrong. His writing makes it hard for us "normal" people to relate to what he is saying. I also think that you would have to have a good global definition of what constitutes good decisions and bad decisions. It may not seem like it but the fact of the matter is that we all have different views of right and wrong. I would like to think that those views don't differ that much on subjects like murder but hey I can't be sure about that. But anyway, i agree with Mill the our freedom is what shapes us into individuals with our own ways of thinking and our own unique personalities.
I think that Mill and Plato both have a point in their arguments concerning liberalism and democracy and I think that the core ideas of their arguments, though not at face value, are very similar. The only thing that separates Plato from Mill is that Plato thinks that the common masses of people are ignorant and therefore incapable of knowing how to govern their own lives let alone the government. Plato believes that only a few people, whom he calls “philosopher kings”, have the right to rule, which seems to contrast with Mill’s idea of democracy. However, Plato’s philosopher kings are supposed to have the right to pursue a good education and basically anything that the person desires because it will make them a more experienced and better ruler, which are qualities that a liberal state must grant. Moreover, Plato doesn’t know which people in a state will be born with innate qualities that make them good rulers, and so it logically follows that a state must allow democratic individuals so these philosopher kings can reap the benefits. Mill has a similar reason for wanting a liberal state. He believes that there are special people who are “geniuses” and can push the arts and sciences forward which is really good and should be encouraged. Therefore, a liberal state is necessary.
ReplyDeletePlato and Mill start to differ when the “geniuses” and “philosopher kings” are developed. Mill seems to believe that even after the geniuses are discovered, a common person can still continue to improve and develop into thinkers and moral characters. He seems to uphold that only through the collaborative government of democracy and a liberal state can these common people improve. Plato disagrees that the non-philosopher kings can be worthwhile participants of society. Since they aren’t as good as the philosopher kings, they had best leave the government up to them.
As to whom is right I think it is a combination. I see Plato’s point that some people are idiots and shouldn’t have a right in the government, and there are people who are idiots, but I think that he is not right to dismiss the rest of a population because they aren’t philosopher kings. There are no absolute qualities for a ruler that one must have if anything they say is supposed to have any validity, everyone has a combination of good leadership qualities and normal or bad qualities. Those who are not philosopher kings are still citizens who should have a valid say in the government, as Mill believes. Both Plato and Mill’s ideas can be seen in the American government, Mill’s notable public have the right to vote on some major topics, but you can also see Plato’s ideas in the Senate and other places where decisions are left to representatives of the nation. Personally, I think that this is a good balance because I think that both Mill and Plato have a point in their arguments.
Today’s society is very competitive. There is a limited amount of jobs and resources, and people, in order to survive, enter into this competitive society. When a person is given the freedom to pursue his or her own choices, he or she will probably pursue that which is of the most interest to him or her. When a person is engaged in an activity of his or her own choice, the person becomes invested in the activity. Therefore, if a person is given the opportunity of choice, society will progress faster, spurred both by competition and a personal investment in it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeffy in that the flaw with Plato’s argument is that if people don’t know what to do with freedom, it is simply because they are not used to it. This phenomenon occurs often, I think, when students that have not developed sufficient independence and skills are sent off to college. In college, these students have a lot of freedom and aren’t used to it; the result is that they mismanage their time, probably spending their time at parties rather than in the library. Once they get this to the freedom and realize that they need to study in order to survive, they learn and adapt accordingly. Plato is imagining a scenario in which the people with freedom are like children or young adults who do not know what to do with freedom. Given time and experience, however, freedom is actually much more beneficial than Plato’s notion of a predetermined place in society.
I also personally disagree with Plato’s idea that a free individual is destined for unhappiness. To the contrary, I think that a people would be a lot happier if they could make their own choices rather than follow the decisions of an all-powerful state. I agree, however, that in a democratic society, there is a greater possibility for lost potential. If a more powerful institution – the government, for example – did not dictate that schooling is mandatory, it is highly likely that fewer children would get educations that would allow them to develop their potential. People must be well-informed enough to make their own choices. School, then, should be mandatory. Beyond that, however, I think that Mill’s philosophy makes a lot more sense than Plato’s.
While both philosophers have interesting views, Mill's opinion on the democratic individual is more sensible and accurate. Plato's idea that following your inclination leads to unhappiness can be true or false, but ultimately there is no way to know unless you try. In most cases, what you have studied and worked hard to become is something that you are dedicated to and enjoy, leaving you happy and content with your professional choice. On the flip side of that, if a person is forced to go into something rather than choosing for themselves, there are high chances that the person is not going to be happy. For example, if a person who absolutely hated biology and chemistry was deemed to be a doctor, they would not lead a successful or joyous life because they would dread every day of work.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Mill proposes the idea that only when people have freedom can they develop into who they want to be. This is completely true. If there are no restrictions on what a person can and can't be, this allows them to determine their life. If they are unhappy with it, they can try to adjust it, but ultimately it is their fault, not the governments. Mill isn't necessarily arguing that with liberty a person will be a good person, but rather they will be true to themselves. This idea is seen in American society all the time. People are able to go to school, become educated, and pursue any degree/profession that they wish. Many times, a family has a family business and the son is supposed to run the business when he gets older. What if this son this a mathematical genius and he dreams of becoming an engineer, and his family's company is greeting cards? If this man doesn't have the liberty to pursue engineering, the world would never be able to know what he could have accomplished (perhaps he could have been the one to invent the flying car that relies solely on electrical and solar energy). I agree with Mill that people should be able to pursue their naturals impulses and not be restricted because their impulse is potentially unsatisfying and ultimately makes a person unhappy.