Notes for Class Eleven: Political Philosophy II

I. Plato's Critique of Democracy: According to Plato, the average person lacks the knowledge and mastery of emotions necessary to make informed and rational decisions about governmental policies and laws. People generally pursue their own (irrational) self-interests. Because they are guided by emotion and ignorance, they cannot be trusted to act in a politically responsible way. So asking them to participate in the running of the State (as in a democracy) is asking for trouble. Instead, only those who are well-trained and committed to doing what is good for the whole community should rule. That means that those who understand what is in the best interests of the whole and who can control their emotions (that is, the philosophers) should rule: it is their duty to direct the affairs of the State, even if it is not what they want to do.

The task of rulers is to harmonize the various forces at work in a society. Since the vast majority of a society consists of ordinary working people who are primarily interested in improving their own lives (instead of being concerned with the greater social good), they spend most of their time accumulating property and wealth. This is not all that bad, considering that it is through their efforts that everyone else in society obtains the means to live. The other two classes in society--the rulers and those who enforce the rulers' laws (that is, the police or military)--must not be tempted to accumulate wealth, so they share all of their property; they even share wives and children in communal families. People in a society should accept their roles (either as rulers, enforcers, or producers of goods). Those who need an explanation for why some rule and others don't must be told a "noble lie," a story that justifies class distinctions and explains why some individuals belong to certain classes. The lie is necessary to avoid social unrest. As long as everyone in society fulfills his or her function, the society prospers.

Objections:

1. Ideally, Plato's Republic sounds good; but as is indicated by the failure of almost every utopian scheme of government, human beings simply cannot live in the ways required by his model.
2. Plato's opinion of the intellectual abilities of people in a democracy seems to be excessively low. Of course people make mistakes and can be swayed by emotion. That is why it is important for democracies to have checks and balances to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.

II John Stuart Mill proposes a political philosophy that addresses the issue of a dictatorship of the majority. Mill argues that government is justified in limiting individual liberties only when harm to others is involved. He proposes a form of "laissez-faire" liberalism (or what is today called a libertarian viewpoint).

In the past, Mill notes, liberty meant protection against the tyranny of political rulers by means either of appeal to rights or constitutional checks. Now, we must watch out for the "tyranny of the majority," where the majority of a people may try to impose their will on the minority. To avoid this, we need a guideline to restrict social tyranny. Without this, the individual will always be at the mercy of whims of the majority.

That guideline is the "principle of liberty." According to that principle, individuals can justifiably be coerced in society only to protect the health and welfare of others who will be harmed by an action. No one can be justly coerced to improve himself or protect himself (though we may try to persuade the person). Law is appropriate where harm to others is concerned; social pressure is appropriate where offense is concerned; and persuasion is appropriate where conscience is concerned. But (in an attack on state paternalism) Mill insists that the state has no right to make people choose what is best for them. Liberty of thought and freedom of expression require that the society respect the rights of the individual not to be harrassed.

If someone is inconsiderate (annoying) without being harmful, opinion (but not law) can be used to modify such behavior. If no one is offended or harmed--i.e., where it is a matter of taste--no interference is justified. However, each person who benefits from being in a society has an obligation to defend the society from injury. State intervention is justified to improve general living conditions in a society (e.g., protection of the environment, support of the arts), but it cannot force individuals to take advantage of those improvements.

Objections:

1. Mill's principle is too vague to be useful. It gives no clear indication about where one draws the line between harm, offense, and private beliefs about decency and good manners. In particular, it fails to distinguish clearly between what is private and what is public. This might be due to the fact that everything we do affects others in some way or other.
2. Not everyone acts in rationally self-interested ways, due to superstitions (unjustified beliefs based on fear, awe, error) and ignorance. Education can liberate minds from superstitious religious and political dogmas. An educated population would support wise public policies that aim at the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
3. People do not always act in rationally self-interested ways; they sometimes act irrationally, relying on customs, tastes, or product loyalty. Governmentally sponsored education programs, and control of the economy and the flow of information are necessary to protect citizens from their own short-sightedness (e.g., in exploiting natural resources).

III. The political spectrum: Because people often use terms (e.g., "liberal," "conservative") without knowing what those terms mean, it is important to understand the concepts underlying different political philosophies. By spelling out the characteristics of these concepts, we are able to situate the thinkers we have studied.

Regarding personal matters (e.g., sexual activity or drug use): the classical liberal says let people do what they want, the conservative assumes that people cannot be trusted to act properly and must be told what to do. Regarding economic or governmental matters: the authoritarian says that decisions about what is socially right must be left to the government, and the libertarian says that the least government is the best government.

Plato is a conservative-authoritarian. Hobbes is a liberal-authoritarian. Locke is a liberal-libertarian. Rousseau is a liberal-libertarian regarding how human beings are naturally but a conservative-libertarian regarding people under the influence of society. For Rousseau, individuals become fully human by unitying their particular wills to the general will. By contrast, John Stuart Mill highlights the difference between the public and the private. Though he agrees with Rousseau's libertarianism, Mill is more liberal regarding private, personal matters, and conservative regarding public matters.

(It should be noted that in the 20th Century, both liberals and conservatives have increasingly absorbed what was previously considered private into the domain of the public.)