Chef: Plato and Normal People Essay

Submitted By akonzalla
Words: 363
Pages: 2

Second Essay
3) What is Plato’s main argument against democracy? In what way is John Sturt Mill’s view similar to Plato’s? DO you think Plato was correct in his critique of democracy? Explain why/why not?

Plato’s main argument is that, only expert s should rule. Because making political decisions or decisions in the interest of the state require judgement and skills, only the expert have therefore ruling should be left to the experts. Plato’s definition of experts is philosophers. The just society is impossible unless the kings become philosophers or the philosophers become kings. And for this to happen, philosophical training should be a necessary qualification to rule. This is how the current democracy works, the mob, the vulgar, people without knowledge or wisdom are the one ruling the experts. Plato saw democracy only as a mean to achieving good decisions and argued that it would result in bad rather than in good decision.

If you are ill/sick and go see a doctor, you do not want a normal person or a group of them to treat you and you also do not want a group of normal people together to vote about your treatment either. The doctor is the expert, he or she is specially trained for the job. His argument comes down to the claim that it is better to leave such decisions to the experts.

John Stuart Mill’s view is that experts should rule better if normal people only chose which expert should represent them. He argued that normal people can never be experts, but…