Democracy vs plato

The problem with all these variations on consent theory is that they face a worrisome dilemma. They may not be able to organize and articulate their views as easily as other groups.

Both short-term and long-term expectations and decisions of a democratic polity may be quite thoughtless, ill-advised, stupid, illusory, dangerous, or outright insane. These types of desires are a result of a rapid influx of liberty into the population. This is often balanced, however, by the fact that some trials are decided by juries.

On a theoretical level Lenin was politely but vigorously opposed in by Rosa Luxemburg, one of the radical leaders of the Social Democrats in Germany. He hypothesized that a hybrid system of government incorporating facets of all three major types monarchy, aristocracy and democracy could break this cycle.

The poor underclass grows and many of them become either beggars or thugs imbued with anger at their condition and a revolutionary spirit which threatens the stability of the state from within.

For example classical utilitarianism simply has no room in its fundamental value theory for the ideas of intrinsic fairness, liberty or the intrinsic importance of an egalitarian distribution of political power.

Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.

The most informed minds must determine objectively, with due consideration of all points of view, what the most healthy and practical goals for the commonwealth are. Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society.

This appears to be very similar to anarchy. It was so easy to depose their predecessors, so why not them? Neo-liberals argue that any way of organizing a large and powerful democratic state is likely to produce serious inefficiencies.

For one thing, his eyes would get hit so hard by the sunlight that he could not possibly recognize any of the things that exist on the surface of the earth.

Criticism of democracy

And one must wonder about the importance of the idea of self-determination to the account. Many beliefs are justified for me even if they are not compatible with the political beliefs I currently hold as long as those beliefs can be vindicated by the use of procedures and methods of thinking that I use to evaluate beliefs.

But the rule by the many was no remedy for the ills of oligarchy, according to Plato, because ordinary people were too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians. Warriors defend the people. This new form of government empowered the common citizen in ways that were unheard of.

Ideological conservatives, too, tended to have strong reservations with regard to popular rule. And now he is a tyrant, the leader has no choice if he wishes to rule.Plato’s democracy naturally sprang from oligarchy. When a group of leaders start to corrupt and utilize the law for their own benefits (namely, to gather riches) against others’, the ruled will revolt and overthrow the rulers, thereby establishing democracy.

Democracy, by its nature, is the equality. The positions of Plato and Aristotle on nearly of these issues are concentrated in their respective critiques of democracy.

This paper is motivated by the pivotal question: what can we learn from the detailed impugnment of democracy offered in Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics? An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic.

Plato’s and Aristotle’s Democracy

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.

For the major point of Plato's discussion of knowledge, education, and democracy is the contention that democracy will not work--will not be a true democracy--unless its citizens are sufficiently prepared for it.

Plato's five regimes

This is a point that many modern democrats share. Plato / Aristotle: The debate of the Ancients (Aristocracy vs Democracy) The question of the best government is at the heart of the political thinking of the two philosophers. Both Plato and Aristotle discussed "democracy" in terms of the six categories framework.

The six categories consist of three pairs and the first two are Royalty becomes Tyranny when perverted. The next two are Aristocracy becomes Oligarchy when perverted.

Democracy vs plato
Rated 5/5 based on 77 review