Plato on democracy
Michael Lacewing
enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk
© Michael Lacewing
Two claims
• The kind of freedom democracy
creates is ‘licence’ - getting what you
want. This kind of freedom is harmful;
the value of freedom is in choosing
what is good.
• Democracy is rule by ignorance, which
is bad for everyone.
The beast
• Suppose a man was in charge of a large and
powerful animal, and made a study of its moods
and wants; he would learn when to approach
and handle it, when and why it was especially
savage or gentle, what the different noises it
made meant, and what tone of voice to use to
soothe or annoy it… But he would not really
know which of the creature’s tastes and desires
was admirable or shameful, good or bad, right
or wrong; he would simply use the terms on the
basis of its reactions, calling what pleased it
good, what annoyed it bad. (The Republic, Book
VI, 493b)
The ship
• Suppose the following to be the state of affairs
on board a ship… The captain is larger and
stronger than any of the crew, but a bit deaf
and short-sighted, and similarly limited in
seamanship. The crew are all quarrelling with
each other about how to navigate the ship, each
thinking he ought to be at the helm; they have
never learned the art of navigation and cannot
say that anyone ever taught it them, or that
they spent any time studying it; indeed they say
it can’t be taught and are ready to murder
anyone who says it can.
The ship
• They spend all their time milling round the
captain and doing all they can to get him to give
them the helm. If one faction is more successful
than another, their rivals may kill them and
throw them overboard, lay out the honest
captain with drugs or drink or in some other
way, take control of the ship, help themselves
to what’s on board, and turn the voyage into the
sort of drunken pleasure-cruise you would
expect.
The ship
• Finally, they reserve their admiration for the
man who knows how to lend a hand in
controlling the captain by force or fraud; they
praise his seamanship and navigation and
knowledge of the sea and condemn everyone
else as useless. They have no idea that the true
navigator must study the seasons of the year,
the sky, the stars, the winds and all the other
subjects appropriate to his profession if he is to
be really fit to control a ship…
The ship
• …and they think that it’s quite impossible
to acquire the professionl skill needed for
such control (whether or not they want it
exercised) and that there’s no such thing
as an art of navigation. With all this going
on aboard aren’t the sailors on any such
ship bound to regard the true navigator as
a word-spinner and a star-gazer, of no use
to them at all? (The Republic, Book VI,
488a-e)
Analysing the analogy
•
•
•
•
the ship = the state;
the captain = politicians;
the crew = the people;
the art of navigation = the knowledge
of the good needed to rule properly;
and
• the true navigator = the philosopher.
Philosopher kings
• Politics is about the common good.
• There can be knowledge of the common good.
• People don’t always (or even generally) know
what is good for them; and so consent will only
tell us what they want, not how they should be
ruled.
• People certainly don’t know the common good;
nor are they motivated by it.
• Philosophy gives us true and proper knowledge
of what is good. It is philosophers, then, who
ought to rule.
Objections
• Is the common good independent of what we
want?
• Can philosophers have knowledge of the
common good?
• Would philosophers make good rulers in any
other way?
• Is politics (only) about the common good?
• Does democracy embody other values?