Reluctant Rulers
In the Republic, Plato's Socrates famously says that no one should be willing to be a ruler of a city. In fact, he suggests there's something wrong with people who really want to be rulers, because it suggests they care about the wrong things or have an improper view of what ruling is all about. After all, real ruling is hard work, undertaken for the sake of the people of the city. So, the proper motive for ruling, according to Socrates, is to rule because one is compelled to rule, because it's necessary. And in large part, what compels someone to rule is that if she doesn't do it, someone worse than her will end up the ruler.
Does this sound right to you? Should we expect our leaders--politicians, administrators, pastors, etc.--to be servants who are unwilling in Socrates' sense? Is a positive desire to be a leader grounds for moral suspicion?
Does this sound right to you? Should we expect our leaders--politicians, administrators, pastors, etc.--to be servants who are unwilling in Socrates' sense? Is a positive desire to be a leader grounds for moral suspicion?