Plato and Mill on the relationship between individual and society Essay

Plato was born around 428-7 BC, he lived for the most part of his life in Athens, and had much to say about Athenian democracy. Mill was born much later in London in 1806, but although over two thousand years of political philosophy divide the two, much of the same issues and concerns arise in both their work though often with very different outlooks. Despite their differing opinions Plato and Mill are both antithetical, or in other words believe that the â€Å"tyranny of the majority† is to be feared. Plato believes that individuals are selfish and pursue their own self-interests at the expense of the rest of the population, and follow their own moral path. The philosopher individual is epitomised by the â€Å"Gadfly†. The gadfly is referred to by Plato in the Apology, to describe Socrates’ relationship with the Athenian political scene. Socrates believed he irritated for the purpose of leading people closer to the truth ‘to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth’. The gadfly describes a person who upsets the status quo by posing lots of questions. Plato states that while the gadfly is easy to swat, the cost to society of silencing an individual simply because of his irritancy could be extremely high. This seems to contradict some of what he has to say on his republic, as he stifles the lower class citizens in the Kallipolis, counting their opinions as obsolete in comparison to the philosophers. The gadfly is also mentioned in the Bible in the Book of Jeremiah also relating to political influence ‘Egypt is a very fair heifer; the gadfly cometh, it cometh from the North’. Plato believes that Democracy fosters the wrong kind of individual, hence the Kallipolis, which is the inverse of Democracy, designed to bring about the ‘right way of living’. In Plato’s view, an individual is fulfilled by the contribution that he or she makes to the overall functioning of the community, and the Kallipolis is designed to make this possible for everyone. Plato’s state also respects the individuality of its members and treats them equally. In Plato’s republic, the state limits the freedom of its individuals, but only to ensure that all the members receive the same amount of freedom. In effect, Plato believes that the repression of individual freedom results in equal freedom for the society as a whole. This is contrasted to Mill, whose view is that, excluding children, the individual is sovereign over himself, his body and his mind. Interference in an individual’s beliefs or actions is wrong. Unless it is known that one is inflicting harm upon another, interference is not justified. Mill has three liberties that are the hallmark of a free society- the first is the freedom of thoughts and sentiment on all subjects, including freedom of expression and publication. The second liberty is the freedom of taste; the fact that others may disapprove of an individual’s actions or beliefs, is not justified by Mill as the basis of interference, for example homosexuality. The third and final liberty necessary for a free society is the freedom of individuals to unite as long as the resulting union does not lead to others being harmed as a result. Mill forbids coercion and deception within the union, as he believes it is unjustified to have a direct negative impact on the utility of others (this does not involve doing something which someone else does not agree with). Mill encourages individualism and self-development or ‘human flourishing’ as he believes that it will only benefit society, as the individuals will be able to contribute more if they reach their full potential and are allowed to develop their own ideals and opinions. Mill has concerns over the limits of which power can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. Safeguards are necessary to ensure that the majority does not suppress the minority. ‘Mankind would be no more justified in silencing one person, than that one person; if he had the power would be justified in silencing mankind’. Plato believes that false opinions could be dangerous to society, whereas Mill would say they were necessary in order to help obtain the truth, something that we as humans so desperately strive to obtain. Plato believes that satisfying our desires is something scarcely worth caring about, whereas Mill would encourage us to do so as long as it brings utility rather than harm. Free discussion in Mill’s opinion will only aid us in getting closer to the truth, as who is to decide what is true if there is no proof? A combination of views, questions and opinions are better than one view or opinion that is decided to be true, and not questioned. There are always people who will disagree with something that others agree with, so who is ‘right’? Plato believes that in order to have a productive and harmonious society, conditioning or training is necessary to ensure that the members’ actual desires coincide as far as possible with their real desires, thus reducing conflict. Mill would argue that this is in a sense brainwashing the individuals to believe that they are happy and that they are fulfilling desires, when in fact they are only fulfilling what the Philosopher Kings have told them they desire. Plato believes in critical freedom, which the Kallipolis is intended to provide to its members as much as their nature permits, Mill however believes in actual freedom in which all is permitted but harm (The Harm Principle). Mill’s rejection of social contracts is accompanied with the acceptance of certain rules of conduct in our dealing with others in return for the protection we receive from society. For example, we are bound to observe and respect the rights of others and according to him â€Å"As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it†. Otherwise Mill states that foolish actions do not deserve penalties, and that mature individuals should be left to develop and coagulate their own views and act on their own impulses. All society can do is help educate its members as to what is moral and immoral before they reach the state of maturity and therefore the freedom they have a right to. Plato’s similes are used to demonstrate the negative aspects of democracy and Athenian politicians. The simile of the cave is used to show how politicians will conceal the truth from the people (represented by the prisoners). The people are ignorant and do not possess the knowledge that they deserve. The prisoners are bound and only have a view of the wall in front of them, there is a fire behind them, between them and the wall is nothing. All that the prisoners can see are shadows of themselves, and of the objects behind them. The prisoners naively believe that the shadows are real as they have nothing else upon which to base their knowledge. One of the prisoners manages to escape from the cave, and in the light of the sun sees the real world for the first time. He realises that all this time he was deceived by shadows. This man, if according to Plato is in possession of the capacity for knowledge and wisdom will feel it is his duty to go back to the cave, release his fellow prisoners and enlighten them. The other prisoners are hard to persuade however, as his exposure to the sunlight renders him unable to see the shadows as clearly as before, and so the prisoners just think that he is less intelligent than when he was trapped. Plato justifies the Philosopher Kings lying to the people in order to protect them. Plato argues the necessity of a structured organised society separate from the outside world in which every individual reaches their maximum potential and has a fundamental part to play in contributing all they can to their community as a whole. Education is available to all members of the Kallipolis regardless of gender. Mill states in his introductory chapter to On Liberty that the ‘struggle between liberty and authority is the most conspicuous feature’. Mill developed a principle to counteract what he calls the ‘interference of collective opinion’ on an individuals’ independence, this principle was called the Liberty principle. Mill and Plato have different styles of communicating their points, Mill expresses his ideas in the form of discursive arguments, Plato however expresses his ideas in the form of dialogue, something which Mill praises Plato for regardless of their conflicting conclusions. Plato’s Kallipolis, or utopia is designed as a hierarchical state consisting of three different classes, the Producers, the Auxiliaries, and the Guardians. These three different classes will have very different experiences of life, and which one they will lead depends on their capacity for knowledge. The three classes experience different upbringings, and receive different levels of education. Plato contradicts himself, he says that all people in the Kallipolis should be ‘friends’ and ‘equals’ yet he also unashamedly states that the Producers will not be able to choose how they wish to live their lives, and that their opinions are the least worthy. The Producers are in effect not free, but rather slaves to their senior ranking class, the Guardians. The Producers are thought to be the least intelligent mass of the population, and they are therefore expected to trust and believe their rulers. This is justified by Plato because it is better for them to be under the control of ‘divine wisdom’ something that the minority of the population possess, and what makes those that do worthy to rule over all others. Plato’s belief is that if these less intelligent people are allowed to think freely, then they will make the wrong choices, and an individual is only worth what they contribute to their community as a whole. This means that personal desires are not as important as the overall functioning of the community, which is immaculately ruled by the Philosopher Kings who have the ability to learn and retain the knowledge leaded to rule and guide the citizens of the Kallipolis. Mill’s views contradict these of Plato’s; his liberalist view is that the individual is important in creating the desired environment within the state and is worthy of reaching their full potential in all areas. Mill considers freedoms of opinion and of actions necessary, and his Harm Principle was made to help protect other individuals from being hurt. Mill believes that individuals have a fundamental right to discover and develop their knowledge to their maximum capacity with the absence of ‘a priori’ constraints. Plato’s view on the freedom of individual development of knowledge is that it is the â€Å"despotism of custom†. Mill prioritises the freedom of thought and expression; he believes that unless we push an argument to its absolute limit, then we cannot claim to fully understand it. Mill says that we must listen to everyone, even those that offend us, or those who we believe to be irrelevant. Mill’s justification for this is that if one person speaks out against an otherwise unanimous society about a certain topic, and they are right, then they could enlighten the mass to the truth. If they speak out and are found to be wrong, then they have simply helped the mass come closer to the truth by falsely opposing it. Plato’s analogy of the Beast shows how politicians will keep society happy in the short term, while not regarding what is best for them in the long term. It works on the basis of keeping the people satisfied rather than truly doing what is best for them (according to Plato). The keeper of the Beast manipulates it with what is wants at the time by giving it treats, with no regards for its health. It is made clear however that the Beast is manipulating the keeper too, by getting what it currently desires out of him. For this reason Plato says that freedom to do what one wants when ignoring the absolute truth, or the long term real effects of certain action or decision can be damaging to the â€Å"inward domain of consciousness†. Similarly, his analogy of the Ship of State depicts his attitude on Athenian democracy. The captain of the ship is stronger than any of the crew, but he lacks the skill of working on and handling the boat. The crew argue over who should be in control, and beg the captain to allow them to take control of the ship. Those who succeed turn the voyage into a â€Å"drunken pleasure cruise†. The true navigator or â€Å"star-gazer† is overlooked by his fellow men although he is the only one skilled enough to actually guide the ship, he possesses the â€Å"art of navigation†, and seamanship. He is unable to gain the control needed to steer the ship to safety. The captain represents Athenian citizens responsive only to the rhetoric of the crew, the crew represent the politicians, they are manipulative and are not concerned with the truth, but rather power. Plato says that eventually the crew will ask the navigator for help, sacrificing their freedom and control for their safety and social benefit. The navigator is capable of using his knowledge of astronomy (knowledge of Being) to help guide the ship and those on it through a world of constantly changing and sometimes-dangerous weather conditions (the world of Becoming). The crew must surrender to the navigator, as he possesses not opinions or beliefs, but facts. The crew have to recognise his superior knowledge and therefore his authority, although they would fail to do so if it did not ultimately benefit them. Mill would argue that this analogy is incomplete, for the crew are able to be taught the skill of navigation themselves and do not need to rely solely on the â€Å"star-gazer†, wouldn’t a crew of capable navigators be better than just one? Mill would argue that it is vital for the well being of the state to be able to argue against the truth. He argues the positive value of blasphemy as it challenges assumptions that are established as being right or wrong. We can criticise Mill for assuming that all individuals are capable of being rational and having rational thoughts and discussions. Equally, Plato fails to recognise the need for questioning and testing and assumes that people will accept sacrificing their freedom because he tells them too. If the â€Å"tyranny of the majority† is to be feared then why would Plato put the minority in power, and deprive the majority of control over their lives and the lives of their children? Mill and Plato hold the same or similar views on the issue of gender. Plato says that all citizens of the Republic, male or female will have access to equal education, as gender is obsolete when knowledge is the main focus, although a woman could never become a Philosopher Ruler. In 1869 Mill wrote â€Å"The Subjection of Women†, in which he encouraged and supported equal rights for both genders. Mill encouraged the equal rights for women on the basis of utility. He argued that we could not criticise women for being less skilled than men if we did not give them equal opportunity to try. He also said that society could not be at its best when half the population could contribute nothing to society outside of the home. Plato had a number of conditions that he says will help maximise the usefulness of all members of society, the stories which children are told must be authorised, and there is the censorship of music and the restriction of meat and fish unless it is roasted. Children are to be removed from their parents and are not to know who their parents are and visa versa. They are to call all males old enough ‘father’ and all females ‘mother’, the purpose of this was to minimise private possessive emotions therefore reinforcing their focus on their relationship with their community. Deformed children and children of inferior breeding will be ‘put away in some mysterious unknown place as they ought to be’. The works of Homer and Hesiod, two of the earliest Greek poets are banned, as they encourage their readers to fear death, and depict the heavens as being filled with the ‘inextinguishable laughter of the blessed Gods’. Plato on the other hand banned loud laughter. Mill would argue that this repression is an infringement of basic human rights, and the suppression of individual development and human flourishing will do nothing but hinder the development and progression of mankind. How can society benefit if most individuals are at a disadvantage as to developing their own unique skills? Plato classifies people in three groups, as gold, the best members of society fit to be guardians, as silver members fit to be soldiers, and the common herd of brass and iron, fit only to be the producers. This is what Plato describes as the ‘one royal lie’ used to deceive both the rulers, and the rest of the city, if he can justify lying about God’s creation of the three differing classes of people then why is he justified in choosing which one they belong to? Breeding is organised with the strongest members of society used simply to keep the population ‘constant’ and as best bred as they can be. The strongest of sires are allowed to have the most children and the weaker ones less. The fundamental difference between Mill and Plato is that while Plato wished to radically change the structure of society in order to condition and force the people to behave and think in a certain way, Mill would leave the people to develop naturally, yet offer them all the education and teaching needed to steer them away from negative things and intervene only when one is inflicting harm upon another. Mill’s two main criticisms of Plato’s republic are that the proper function of the state is to regulate behaviour, not to encourage one or another’s set of belief or values. The second is that tolerance should be restricted to cases where it does not undermine the moral foundations of the community. He would argue that social bigotry should be restrained for the sake of encouraging freedom of thought and expression. Mill endorses Grote’s admiration of Athenian tolerance, as tolerance is a necessity and encourages genius as a society ‘may have persons of talent†¦but genius in such a soil is fatally stunted in it’s growth’. Plato on the other hand criticises Athenian tolerance on the basis that the maintenance of public emotions requires repression by both law and by non-legal sanctions. He held the belief that Athenian tolerance undermines civic spirit required for the furtherance of the tolerant society itself. Aristotle, a student of Plato’s born in 384BC stated that it is ‘the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it’. It is interesting that somebody taught by Plato would recognise the need for the self-development of opinion, something that Mill believes to be essential for a progressive society. Mill states that his father taught him to value Plato and his contributions to philosophy, and he says that he does just that. He called himself a pioneer when he began his translations of Plato’s work. Perhaps this was because he believed that the time that separated the two philosophers had made way for changes albeit dramatic, to Plato’s ideas that would concur with the modern world. Mill criticised Plato for trying to show that virtue is in the individuals’ interest, but also for attempting to give justification that virtue should be preferred at all. Neither Plato nor Mill’s work is flawless, so criticisms can be made on their errors and self-contradictions, yet both of these men helped advance philosophy immensely, and provided the basis of much discussion and debate. For Mill, freedom is necessary and desirable by both the individual and society. For Plato however freedom is not of fundamental concern; it is far more important to live according to the eternal and immutable truths. Herein lays the biggest contrast in the works of these two influential philosophers as regards the relationship between the individual and society.