Plato's theory of philosopher kings

Plato held that a just state would be run by philosopher guardians. Plato thinks that, given their education, talents, virtues and the way their lives would be controlled in his Republic, such people are the best possible rulers. Is he right about this?

One of the contradictions in Platonic philosophy is that its oligarchic structure of rule by philosopher kings who are 'the best' and 'most fit' to create a 'just' state embodies an antidemocratic and unjust philosophy. The idea that only those temperamentally fit to rule should rule has often been used to justify tyranny. Socrates, at the beginning of the Republic, calls for his listeners to strive to live a good life, not one that is merely pleasurable or self-serving. However, despite his calls for justice, a society which denies individual autonomy can never be just and dictatorships almost inevitably produce self-serving regimes.

At the beginning of the Republic, Socrates gets into a heated argument with Glaucon, who states that 'might makes right' and that all human beings will act unjustly if given ultimate power. Socrates states that the type of dictatorship advocated by Glaucon is morally wrong, because the best individuals are not able to rule, only the strongest and most brutish. However, Socrates also argues against the position advocated by Thrasymachus, who empowered ordinary people to argue their positions in courts of law. Socrates believes that only reasoned philosophers can know the truth and provide moral guidance, and manipulating words is not synonymous with morality. This also means that Socrates advocates another form of government as superior to democracy: one in which those who were most suited to rule would dominate, much like Socrates believed that only those suited to be cobblers should make shoes and the best warriors should defend the state

It is by this principle that Plato creates the structure of his ideal society, one in which the most philosophically gifted make policy, the strongest defend the philosopher, and everyone else is relegated to manual labor and trades. In this ideal world, the philosopher kings are not tempted to take advantage of their position, and it is assumed that the best can be easily selected, and they always will be right. These same sorts of assumptions are used to justify dictatorships today. The leader or leaders are deemed to be infallible, they derive their authority on the basis of military rather than popular rule, and no questioning of their authority is permitted by ordinary citizens.

Plato meant for his system of justice to counteract the belief that justice is merely serving the interests of the stronger, and treating enemies badly and friends well. Abstract principles are supposed to be embodied in the virtues of the philosopher-kings. The idea that they may serve themselves is supposedly counteracted by preventing them from having families or accumulating personal wealth. However, many instances of corruption have been manifested in societies such as the communist Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where officially accumulating wealth was forbidden, but party leaders used their offices and political power to accumulate wealth. Also, there is little evidence that childless people are substantially less corrupt than people with children.

Plato's goal is to create a world that avoids the dangers of both democracies and tyrannies: "The democrats make laws in support of democracy; the aristocrats make laws that support the government of the well-born; the propertied make laws that protect their status and keep their businesses going; and so on. This belief implies, firstly, that justice is not a universal moral value but a notion relative to expediency of the dominant status quo group" (Korab-Karpowicz 2005). Plato desires to establish a universal moral order that transcends the potential flaws of democracy or aristocracy, but his government offers no meaningful checks and balances to curtail them.

This type of suspicion of the philosopher-kings, of course, Plato would likely see as worthy of Glaucon, whose tale of the Ring of Gyges expresses the common notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely -- the ability of Gyges to be invisible turns him into a corrupt man, simply because he can. Unlike Gyges, the philosopher kings put morality above personal interest, and thus they need no watchful authority other than one another to make sure that they do not forget the importance of their position. "Expert political knowledge for him should include not only knowledge of things out there, but also knowledge of oneself" (Korab-Karpowicz 2005).

It could be argued in Plato's defense of his 'rationally' organized society that our society is riddled with class divisions and is far less socially fluid than we might like to think, and many people advance within a democratic system who are not the best and the brightest of their generation to serve. Plato strives to provide a system of common morality to unite all members of the Republic, regardless of class. He tries to ensure that, regardless of birth or wealth, those with great merit are selected to receive the education of philosopher-kings. In the ideal Republic, money does not convey an additional advantage in securing an education or a profession.