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?
posted by randy jensen at 9:35 AM
4 Comments:
I don't think the desire to be a leader is necessarily grounds for suspicion, but I definitely see the point that some of the best leaders didn't desire the position of authority that they were put into. It is human nature that we desire someone ELSE to do things for us and to better our lives, and it is a lot harder to place ourselves willingly into the role of benefactor for others instead of just ourselves. Therefore, someone who is willing to give up their own personal desires to better the circumstances of others would generally be a better leader than one whose focus lies soley on bettering his/her circumstances.
well. I think if someone doesn't want to be the ruler, why should we make him/her to do? it won't do any good for us.
I think we need to choose someone who really cares about people or cares about the society.
A couple of points: First, we should wonder whether Plato means that a good ruler is someone we'll have to force to rule, perhaps by making threats, or rather that a good ruler is "forced" to rule by circumstances. What do you think of a ruler who is willing to rule because it's necessary but wishes it weren't necessary?
Second, there is a real issue here about whether Plato can make room for the kind of altruistic concern mentioned in the previous comments. Some think that Plato's ethical outlook is objectionably self-centered in that he thinks ethical reasoning aims at making my life go well. But it isn't obvious that we should think about "my life going well" as a selfish concern. Perhaps a Thrasymachean picture of a life going well is selfish, but someone else's might not be, for other people play a role in many of our lives and their good is bound up with ours.
Hi there-- can you please provide the citation for this quote from The Republic?
Post a Comment
<< Home