He also developed 4 theories proving and supporting his theory: first of all, he says that ruling is a skilled profession, such as a doctor, a lawyer, so it requires a specific training. Secondly, he has a specific idea of what the training should be: first of all, it will consist of selecting the people who seem to have a judgment and a potential of ruling. Then, the selected candidates will have to go through 5 years of studying philosophy, starting at 30 years old, after that they are heading o do 15 years of military services to teach them discipline and develop their sense of patriotism.
Then, at around 50 years old, more philosophy and it is only at that time that the best candidates will be chosen by previous rulers and their counselors. Furthermore, the qualified to undergo this preparation and to rule are, in Plat’s opinion, the small minority of people in whom the rational part of the mind is naturally the strongest and controls the willing and desiring parts of the mind.
The majority, on the other hand, are oriented in satisfying other people’s desires, especially for goods and services, they don’t understand the requirement of ruling.
They are even denying their existence. Finally, to ensure that the chosen ones do not become corrupt and rule for the public good, Plato says that the rulers won’t own any private property, and that they will not personally raise their children in their home to avoid a creation of a close tie and also avoid favoritism to their children. Validity In my opinion, I feel that Plat’s theory is not valid; although I understand the act that he wants a government ruled by rational and qualified people, which is good, but the way that he is trying to ensure their qualification is wrong.
It is true that it shouldn’t be the majority who has the right to rule, because their rationality and purposes doesn’t correspond with idea of the “ideal ruler”, but the fact that you have to spend over 20 years of studying philosophy and doing military services and then more philosophy after is too much for candidates that are not even sure to be chosen as rulers. Also, the fact that their children is awaken away from them to avoid emotional ties is not right, you should have the right to raise your children, and it wouldn’t affect their rationality.
Rousseau Theory Rousseau believes that people can be free and still obey the gobo. If the laws are the ones they willed themselves. To get everyone in society willing the same set of laws, people must will laws that serve the good of all equally. Although, he recognizes that the general will requires a degree of altruism, in that people aim at the general good. Plato or Rousseau?
In my opinion, Rousseau theory is more valid, simply because his point is more valid, simply because his point is more oriented in the good of the population, while Plat’s theory is more oriented towards the good of the government. Rousseau wants to prove that even if people are free, they still can act in a civilized way and obey laws that had been offered to them and that they agreed with, while Plato does not believe in that. He believes that the majority of people are not rational enough and that they are only interested in things that will benefit to them.
Cite this A judgment and a potential of ruling
A judgment and a potential of ruling. (2018, Jun 08). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/a-judgment-and-a-potential-of-ruling/