Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Expertise or Popularity?
Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Expertise is crucial to a government’s success as Plato states, and democracy or “popularity” is the wrong form of government. I agree with Plato that an expert should be in charge, because as stated earlier in The Republic, an object or a human can only truly master one area of expertise. Therefor someone with life-long training and knowledge should be in charge of those who are deemed more popular. The allegory of the ship and the captain furthermore proves Plato’s claim. In a time of crisis, a captain of the ship would more likely be beneficial than the starting quarterback of a college team. Although more people may tend to be attracted to the popular quarterback, if they truly cared for their lives, they would rely on the captain. However, if you wanted your favorite football team to win the super bowl and you have a choice between Johnny Manziel (who isn’t very good but is very popular), and Tom Brady who is hated outside of New England), one would be ludicrous to not pick Brady. This analogy also applies in many aspects of life including politics. Someone like Donald Trump, who would be detrimental to our society, is the popular vote to become president. If we listened to Plato, we would decide who our next president would be based on their expertise. That expert would be someone who has been involved with politics throughout their life and understand the demands of being president. Without question someone with more expertise would be better suited to be President than Donald Trump. A philosopher king is much more stable and successful then a democratic society. An expert will produce better results than the most popular person, and therefore I agree with Plato.
ReplyDeleteYonah’s analysis seems to be headed in the right direction. As Plato describes the state of democracy and its various issues, however he fails to account for one important aspect of human nature. Although it is true that citizens might make an uneducated decision in picking a leader, common sense more often than not will lead citizens into making a reasonable choice. Plato’s analysis that expertise is needed to run a successful government is correct, but it is compatible with democracy if citizens are making an educated vote. In the case of the ship and the captain, people would not elect someone who they know has no expertise in sailing a ship, because that would only lead them to their demise no matter how well that man convinces them that he will be able to fulfill this job. The problem arises when it comes down to two candidates who both have the correct qualifications to lead. At that point, it becomes a popularity contest, which is one of the issues Plato raises. All in all, as Yonah began to point out, because men have common sense, democracy is not as harmful as Plato makes it out to be. In addition, democracy forces leaders to adhere to the needs and wills of its citizens more effectively, because if not, he/she would not be reelected as leader. While the problem Plato describes persists in the status quo, it is not as detrimental to society as he suggests.
DeleteIn The Republic, Plato argues that democracy is run by popularity rather than expertise. He then goes onto say that expertise is essential to run a government, whereas democracy is not. I fully agree with Plato that expertise is fundamental in ruling a government. Although democracy will always win the support of the people since it's based on popularity, it will not solve issues that require knowledge and expertise. A democracy can often be led astray and make bad decisions because the majority of the people are not knowledgeable and do not know how to make the moral decisions. The story of the captain and the ship is a perfect analogy on the shortcomings of democracy. It is better to let someone with knowledge to make the decisions because they know what is best, rather than a bunch of sailors that don't know what to do. Another example more relatable to the present is picking between Lebron James and Bill Gates to run Microsoft. Although Lebron may be more popular and be voted in by a democracy, the better choice would be Bill Gates because of his knowledge in the given area. In this case Bill Gates would be the philosopher king. Even if some freedom and popularity is sacrificed, this minute sacrifice is needed to ensure the best decisions are made with the least negative drawbacks. Plato's assertion that a philosopher king is best can also be backed up by the fact that all decisions are based on the knowledge of good or morality. This directly contrasts with all other forms of government, because they are led astray as their sole focus isn't what is moral. This guarantees there are no imperfections with a philosopher king ruling and that having a philosopher king is better than any other government.
ReplyDeletePlato’s idea of democracy is that it is a popularity game. This is true because in our society, those with money and/or funds are most likely to get elected. These people are often elected because the voters unconsciously see the candidate’s money as a sign that they can run our country well and boost our economy. When Plato talks about democracy in classic Athens I am sure that the popular people were those who were seen as strong or were well known by the citizens. I believe Plato is correct by saying democracy is a popularity game because even in Hawken, when someone wants to have an important title in the student community the people who are, in the eyes of the students, most popular usually, but not all of the time, get the job. This confirms Plato’s theory because even Hawken’s juvenile form of democracy has these traits. Even though Plato’s ideas are plausible, they can be challenged so that it can be closer to perfect. Sometimes democracy isn’t a popularity game because people who put the popular person in office and they don’t preform well the people will not make it a popularity game because they need someone who is an expert to come in and fix their community’s economy. This is because the demand for excellence is higher now that the economy is in trouble. Whether or not people chose the popular candidate over the capable totally depends on the state of their communities economy because if the economy is good most people don’t care who runs everything so they just look for a pretty face or someone they can relate to. This is because when the economy is good people don’t really see or notice it but when it’s bad they draw most of their attention to it (out of sight out of mind). If Plato were to consider these ideas and revise his argument to fit them he would have a nearly perfect concept.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe Plato is correct when he says that democracy is not the ideal type of government. When a community is run by a democratic government there are too many people who are uneducated on governmental topics making the decisions. As Plato says, in order for a community to be the best each person must have a job that matches their expertise and they should not interfere with other lines of work. In a democracy people who are not experts on government issues are voting for someone to make decision for the community. There’s only a certain amount of people who can actually make an educated decision on who should rule; all others are voting based on the popularity of a candidate. Just as Plato says in his ship and captain analogy, people don’t want to choose someone as the captain if they have no knowledge of how to steer a ship. Yet, in a government the captain would be chosen by the sailors and the most popular could end up being the leader; rather than someone who actually knows what they are doing. At some points Plato’s argument is wrong because it is also important for a ruler to rule with the interest of the community in mind. The best way for a ruler to do what is good for the community is to listen to the needs of the community and act accordingly. In a democracy the people have a voice and it is easier to keep the community happy. Yet, overall it is more important for a ruler to have expertise so they he or she can rule in a matter that is beneficial to the people and the state or country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy has its flaws, and Plato touches on many of them. His concern that it can allow people to be elected not due to their merits, but their popularity, is justified and we see instances of this regularly. There’s no other reasonable explanation for someone as foolish and offensive as Donald Trump to lead in polls. People think he’s funny, love his complete absence of filter, and remember his TV show. Other than finding innovative ways to capitalize on the gambling addiction of American citizens, Donald Trump could hardly be considered an “expert” in any aspect of life. Because of this, In Plato’s ideal society, he would stand no change of gaining political power. Democracy also creates issues today that may not have been present in Ancient Greece. Donald Trump may claim that he can’t be bought, and that’s probably true, but if he loses, he will return to his old ways of influencing politics: lobbying manipulation. This isn’t just about Trump either, as lobbying by the wealthy has always had an impact on American politics. If Plato had his way, our most powerful officials would be guided by morality and knowledge, and we wouldn’t need to worry about them changing their stance to make money. If an environmental expert, who in Plato’s hypothetical system would be in charge not just a consultant, determined that climate change was a pressing issue, no amount of money that an oil tycoon could present would sway the expert, as the truth is his only motivation. I wouldn’t say that there is a better solution than democracy, because there is something to be said for declaring one undisputed face, so long as that person consults experts. Still, Plato’s ideas deserve to be taken seriously, and as far as alternative forms of government are concerned, one which prioritizes knowledge is immediately far better than many.
ReplyDelete