Green 1 Kayse Green Professor Martinsen ENGL V01A February 6th, 2012

Our Ideal Guard Dog Even before taking a political science course, I have often heard these questions posed: Who should rule? The many or the experts? If you were to travel back in time to Ancient Greece (or simply read a nearby political science book), you would discover that even some of the greatest thinkers in the western world wrestled with this pestering question. Plato argued that the experts (or philosopher king in his case) should rule. However, his student Aristotle rejected Platos ideas, suggesting a middle ground. So, who should rule? Should the many, the people, the masses be in control of the government? Should the experts and elites be the ones in control? Or should we seek out a middle ground like Aristotle suggested? The answer to this question may depend on your idea of human nature and what the government should value. Plato and Aristotle agreed that a government should value justice and act in the publics best interest. However, this is the only point on which the two philosophers agreed. Plato and Aristotle had completely different ideas as to how a just government could be achieved due to their divergent opinions on human nature; Plato argued that humans were by nature selfish; his student Aristotle argued that humans were cooperative and social by nature. Plato reinforced his argument that humans were innately unjust by separating the human soul into three parts. Imagine a pyramid separated into three parts. At the bottom of this pyramid is the lowest human trait, the appetite, or the basic human urges. This is the lowest form the

Green 2 pyramid because people guided by appetite only act in their self-interest. The second part of the pyramid is the spirit, which Plato asserts is the positive energy that combats negative energy. For example, remorse, compassion, and empathy help keep our basic desires and urges in check (Dooley and Patten 39). Finally at the very tippity-top of our pyramid lies reason, which is exactly as the name implies. Plato believed that a just and happy human being controls their appetites and their spirits with their reason and wisdom. Aristotle shared a similar idea with his mentor: he believed that the key to human happiness was the ability to reason. This is an incredibly important ability to both philosophers, as it is not only the key to finding ones happiness but also the good. However, while Plato believed that happiness could be found in the pursuit of knowledge alone, Aristotle believed that to reason alone was not enough to find happiness, but a tool to help human beings find their preexisting purpose (Dooley and Patten 51). Plato theorized that there is an objective truth; in the context of politics, he claimed that those who had attained that perfect knowledge were suitable to rule. Plato reasoned that perfect knowledge was required in order to truly understand justice which he further illustrates in his Allegory of the Cave. The ideal ruler was a man (or even a woman) whose knowledge controlled both their appetite and spirit: a philosopher king. A philosopher king would hold an objective truth, fully understanding all of the dimensions of justice. Furthermore, the philosopher would be guided by only reason, and never act based on urges or in his self-interest, but for the good of the public. Unlike Platos philosopher king, Aristotle believed that leaders should possess political skills to govern. While Aristotle agrees that the ability to reason is incredibly important in politics, so too are the political skills needed to initiate a positive change in society. Aristotle reasons in The Politics that the ability to debate is also important because it is through debate

Green 3 that we can carry reason into action (Dooley and Patten 52). Aristotle believed that the ideal leader possessed knowledge regarding what is right and possessed the required political skills to carry it out. Contrary to Platos philosopher king being an ideal leader, Aristotle had no single type of person in mind. He believed that the one best for the job would be the most functional leader and promote justice for all. Platos ideal political system is illustrated in The Republic; he supported the idea of a philosophical monarch or an aristocracy. Earlier, we discussed the three parts of the human soul and how reason must guide the spirit and the appetite. Plato linked the three parts of the human soul with the three parts of the ideal republic. He linked the appetite with the craftspeople, or the working class. Plato believed that the working class was vital to produce economic activity, but since they were guided by self-interest should never rule or rise into the political life. Next are the auxiliaries, or the military, which Plato linked with the spirit of the human soul. Plato reasoned that the military is taught both courage and temperance, so that while they bravely defend the polis (or state) from enemies, they must also never turn their weapons on the populace or try to rise in power. Next we have reason, which was linked with the guardians or the leaders. Plato argued that only the rational should rule the people because they do not act in their selfinterest (Dooley and Patten 39). In contrast to Plato, Aristotle did not create an ideal government; rather he observed different political systems. Aristotle reasons that any political system has the potential to be either good or bad in his theory of mixed constitutions, speculating that a strong political system is one that is a combination of two separate political systems. Aristotle firmly believed in finding a middle ground through this method, arguing that one extreme would never prosper.

Green 4 I disagree with Plato in regards to who should rule, mainly because I dont trust a single leader with all the power. While Plato argues that a philosopher king would rule with knowledge and fairness, I believe it would be too great of a gamble. There is always a chance, no matter how great the odds are against it, that the philosopher king could become corrupt and act in his own self-interest. During class lecture, Professor Porter pointed out that Platos ideal ruler would be above the law. This is something else I completely disagree with. Without law to keep the philosopher king in check, there is an even greater chance of him becoming an unstoppable tyrant. Imagine for a moment that you own a big German Shepherd. This German Shepherd of yours is not the ideal family pet. He is not the cuddliest companion, and he does not seem to do much to provide for the family. However, one night a burglar breaks into your home, and your German Shepherd defends your home and family with all of its might, proving to be an incredibly loyal and faithful creature thats job is to protect your familys safety and welfare. Sometimes you adore this German Shepherd of yours, and sometimes he drives you absolutely bonkers. But in the end you love this dog and trust him with your safety and welfare. This is what I believe our government is like. Its a big faithful guard dog that is going to protect the people and do what it can. Sometimes its a little bit rambunctious, but he still can be tied up outside or disciplined (the law). Should your dog bite you, he can still be tied up outside or disciplined. If the dog remains uncontrollable, a master (the people) should be able to put it down before it becomes an unstoppable and ferocious animal. We dont ever want to see our guard dog, or government, be put down or turn into a ferocious beast. The Government cannot have too much power or be above the law; otherwise it may turn on you and everyone you love.

Green 5 Another reason I completely disagree with Platos political system is because of his idea of a Noble Lie. Basically, Plato reasoned that people were told from a young age that they had a certain metal mixed into their blood. It is this metal that determines their social rank for the rest of their lives. I dont think that is a fair or good system, in the least bit; I don't think anyone should ever be restricted on the basis of their lineage or any other superficial trait. I think that people should have the freedom to climb the social ladder and find happiness, but most of all I dont think any political system should dictate who you are as a human being. I think that Government should provide safety for the people and provide public welfare, not dictate who you are as a human being. While Plato would argue that the Noble Lie is to keep control in the populace, I argue that its an unjust system and even contradicts his ideal just government. However, I do agree with Aristotle that a middle ground is best. I dont think we should have a completely democratic system because its far too unstable. Without proper education people can act upon irrational ideas and desires, leading an entire society into the ground. On the other hand there is also a single ruler, such as Platos philosopher king. I dont think that this extreme is any better because it takes only a single man in power to become corrupted for the society to crash and burn. So I definitely agree with Aristotles idea of a middle ground because it would be stable and everyone would have their say. Heck, look at the U.S. which is an amazing political system (when you take out the corruption but lets ignore that for the time being) built upon Aristotles ideas. I think that, while the U.S. Government isnt the best political system, its incredibly stable and works. In fact, most first-world countries have a similar political system with characteristics of other political systems. So, I believe that the strongest form of government is a marriage or combination of two political systems.

Green 6 Works Cited Patten, Joseph, and Kevin Dooley. Why Politics Matters: An Introduction to Political Science. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Co, 2011. Print.