Boyle1

PHIL2015
Natasha Boyle (213655329)
TA: Aaron Landry
March 15, 2016
2006 Words
Benevolent Dictatorship
Every society is governed by a set of rules and values that define peoples way of
life. In governance, the concept of politics is inevitable, and it takes diligent and
knowledgeable rulers who do not work towards self-interest but to the interests of the
community. In The Republic Plato argues that kings should be philosophers and that
philosophers should be kings (Wolff 53). The rationale for Platos thinking is that
philosophers possess a special level of knowledge, which acts as a recipe for good
governance. In the Republic, there is a systematic questioning of being as Plato tries to
answer the aspects of justice as a problem to human behavior. In the Kallipolis, as
outlined in The Republic, is a beautiful city where the political rulers relied on
knowledge. Philosophers incline on knowledge and not on power. The essay will
demonstrate that philosophers should not be rulers. Although it is inevitable to draw some
similarities between the modern state and the ideal Polis as presented by Plato, it will
make a conclusion that Plato is advertising a political system charged with lack of
democracy and led by a benevolent dictator.
Platos idea of the acceptance of philosophers as kings and kings as philosophers
is theoretically viable, but it may not become ideal in the modern society because,
although knowledge is crucial in any form of ruling, power is crucial in the made up of
political activity. To compose an argument, it will be necessary to highlight on Platos
idea and to expound on its limitations. It will be imperative first to consider his argument
and understand the characteristics that would be applicable in a modern state.
Understanding Platos Argument
Understanding democracy is primary in understanding Platos argument on the
appropriateness of philosophers as rulers and kings. Plato asserts that philosophy involves
non-material and abstract ideas and not the physical and material world that is accessible
to an individual by using their five common senses (Plato 200). In the current world,

Boyle2
most of the states and through the provisions in their constitutions uphold the sense of
democracy. Individuals have a say in the making of rules that govern them. There has
been a debate about democracy since Platos time. The argument revolves around
whether it is the rule of the majority or whether it is the Madisonian view of protecting
the rights of the minorities. According to Plato, democracy is the rule by the demos.
Demos represent the people or the mob (Wolff 67). The making of political decisions
calls for judgment and skill. Plato argues that making viable political reasons should be
left to the experts.
To emphasize on the need to have experts making critical decisions for the people,
Plato employs the craft analogy and gives the example of a ship whose direction depends
on the knowledge of the individual at the wheel. A ships captain must be well versed
with the seasons of the year, the sky and the stars (Plato 204). Having knowledge on such
crucial aspects curtails the need for the captain to become influenced by the thoughts of
others in the ship. Plato stresses on the need for specialization to rule a republic. In the
time before 420 BC, statesmen did not appreciate the role of philosophers in ruling. He
stresses on the dangers of liberty and equality and the unnaturalness of democracy.
The idea of specialization as outlined by Plato is linked justice. According to him,
justice is structural. Political justice emanates from a structured setting, and individual
justice is the product of a structured soul. Plato argues that ruling is a skill, and each
member of the polis harbors a specific skill and a natural aptitude. Therefore, as a skill
ruling requires special training that is only available to a few people. Plato asserts that not
all minds are trained to grasp knowledge. It is a unique skill possessed by philosophers,
and it is their ultimate goal. Knowledge is important in ruling the same way a vision is
dependent on light.
Philosophers as outlined Plato possess a level of knowledge that is not common
with many people. They can recognize friend and foe by analyzing their behavior and
patterns of thoughts. Philosophers also love wisdom as the basic rule of those obsessed
with wisdom. He provides that the rule of the wise is a gateway to sovereignty. Plato goes
ahead to defining justice, and he refers to it as a virtue that is not necessarily learned. It
only requires understanding and knowledge. Understanding is synonymous with

Boyle3
goodness. Therefore, knowledge and goodness are the same. Philosopher kings, as
outlined by Plato, possess the virtue of knowledge and it justifies their rule.
Why Philosophers Cannot Make Good Rulers
In his argument, Plato pays a lot of attention on his definition of democracy as the
rule of the unfit. Such an argument as it revolves around making a judgment for the
purpose if ruling may only be valid if it explains the philosophers ability to grasp the
eternal and immutable while the common folks are blind to true knowledge and reality. It
would also hold if the common people fell under general characteristics of lacking a clear
and standard perception in their mind (Plato 205). However, the argument and stance
taken by Plato may become ideal in the modern context for several reasons.
First, democracy as evolved in the different societies and as the world continues to
develop, people become very sensitive to their role in governance, and they demand a
voice in determining the type of leaders who will govern them. Most states have adopted
the primary definition of democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for
the people. States have, therefore, become strong proponents of the representative mode
of democracy. Citizens exercise it through electing the people to represent them in
government, and they have included to the pluralistic approach towards politics (Wolff
69). While exercising this right, it is not guaranteed that those who hold such positions
will be held by the skilled people as proposed by Plato. It the current world, a state is no
longer under the influence of the elite or philosophers with the attribute of goodness. It is
in the hands of a group of people who come together to argue and discuss policies that
they deem as favorable for their jurisdictions. Ideally, such a team should be composed of
members who have a great deal of knowledge in the matters they are putting forth and
create a positive political change. However, it is very difficult to constitute such a team
through representative democracy whereby the citizens endorse members to the team
(Wolff 70).
Also, philosophers should not be kings only by the virtue of the characteristics
they harbor. Having a deep insight into logic, understanding, ethics, metaphysics and
political philosophy does not deem one as having similar level of understanding in the
needs of the people. While people hold positions that give them the mandate to make
decisions regarding the society in which they represent, they do so primarily to guard the

Boyle4
interests of the public. Ideally, Plato is less concerned with a reprehensive form of
governance. A benevolent dictator works towards decisions that he believes to be viable
in the community without necessarily having the voice of the people in them (Plato 200).
Plato provides that true philosophers are very few by using the allegory of the ship
captain who is well versed with the navigation seasons and not ready to change his mind
from the constant suggestions coming from his team, it is evident that he is supporting a
significant level of dictatorship. Philosophers, therefore, may work their way amidst the
ideas of the majority while holding on to the claim that they are very conversant with
understanding, logic and political philosophy.
The specific level of knowledge that philosophers have makes them inappropriate
rulers and kings. Plato provides that philosophers harbor specific skills that are only
available to a few people (Plato 205). It translates to a very few of them in any society.
If they become rulers, the idea will transform ruling from the common perception of
representation to a ruling class with unique skills and capabilities. It will be difficult for
any government to have a uniform representation. Should two or more rulers hail from
one region or community and the rest of the state misses out, the representation that
forms the core of democracy in the current world would not be in force. For example, the
chamber of Commons in the Great Britain consists of members from the elite class who
have received education from the best schools in the country. If this elite group would
rule the country without considering the proposals from policies made by the Senate and
the parliament, they would largely be representing their interests and those of their kind
(Wolff 72). However elite, they may not understand the needs of all the people. In the
same way, philosophers belong to their class of understanding and logics, but their
understanding does not necessarily reflect the needs of the people in the community.
They are therefore not fit to be rulers.
Philosophers should not be rulers because they incline to benevolence and
dictatorship. Platos idea that philosophers are wise and full of goodness locks them away
from public criticism and ideas. The result will be totalitarianism in which the public
may suffer from the decisions reached by the rulers. The Platonian method of governance
was a common trend in the 20th century, and it saw the rise of various leaders whose rule
was tainted with effective views but which were divergent to needs of the public (Wolff

Boyle5
81). For example, Adolf Hitler who borrowed a lot from the Platonian model had very
great interest for his country. However, his needs did not reflect the interest of the public.
His inability to listen and the disregard for other peoples opinion put the country at the
receiving end of attacks finally.
A divergent view is presented by Annas in his work, Voices from Ancient
Philosophy. According to her, political experts would not be very practical politicians.
Instead, they would possess knowledge in the political arena that requires abstract
reflection and thought. Annas agrees with Plato that in any society, these people are
philosophers (Annas 51). In other states, Annas refers to them as kings, and they are ideal
to be rulers. Her view is that there would be a significant political implication if
philosophers enter the arena since they are the only ones who harbor such knowledge
(Annas 51). Their souls aim at fulfilling the desires of their rational part. The rational
part of the soul is very objective in pursuing happiness that can be drawn from the forms
of the world. For example, it aims at achieving justice. Therefore, submitting to the
guidance and rule of such individuals is pragmatically beneficial to the community.
Conclusively, rulers should not become rulers and kings, especially in the modern society.
The redefinition of democracy and the way people understand it would only create chaos
instead of peace. The claim by Plato that humanity would only achieve peace if political
power falls into the hands of philosophers is misleading. A group of philosophers with a
deep understanding of logical and political philosophy and their ability to bring peace and
happiness is ideal. However, it is very unrealistic in the current world. In fact, Platos
statement that man is a political being strengthens the thesis since if men are political,
they will look forward to be included in political decisions regardless their level of
knowledge; an idea that philosophers would overlook citing the inability of some people
to reason and make viable decisions. However, the position is not to make the role played
by philosophers in governance obsolete. Their insight and logical coherence can be a vital
input in governance. Having a slot for a couple of philosophers on policy-making teams
can help in arriving at more viable decisions. However, governance should not be entirely
at their mandate.

Boyle6
References
Annas, Julia. Voices of ancient philosophy: An introductory reader. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001.Print.
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Vol. 30. New York: Oxford University Press, 1945. Print.
Wolff, Jonathan. An introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press, USA,
2006. Print.