Plato Vs Mill

Words: 1409
Pages: 6

The ideas and theories of major philosophers John Stuart Mill and Plato are without a doubt essential to our study and interpretation of politics. One of Plato’s greatest works, The Republic, and Mill’s On Liberty and other essays, offer us some crucial insight about the concepts of knowledge and political structure that should ultimately be assessed. In the Republic, Plato offers us this idea of a knowledge hierarchy, in which there are only a few people who possess not only a higher degree of knowledge, but dialectical thought. These few people are the only ones who can access the Good of the Form, which sets them apart from the rest of society. This concept is part of the development of Plato’s political hierarchy. According to Mill, there …show more content…
In other words, these people should be experienced enough to make rational judgments about the policies that best fit the interests of people. Apart from that, these people can be distinguished due to their intelligence and ability to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of a certain decision (West 63). Such people can ensure that the principles of utilitarian ethics can be properly implemented (West 63). In addition to that, John Stuart Mill accepts the premise that the selected officials may not be competent enough to promote the welfare of the community. This is why this thinker emphasizes the role of professional advisers who can help politicians make informed decisions (Mill 396). Moreover, Mill’s argument implies that people do not always select the most competent individuals. In some cases, these politicians may not be able to apply the principles of utilitarian ethics. This is one of the points that should be considered because it indicates that people may not necessarily choose the most qualified candidates. As a result, the public interests can be endangered, and one should make sure that this risk is reduced to the