Mill Vs Plato Essay

In the anthology Princeton Readings in Political Thought, editors Mitchell Cohen and Nicole Fermon, tell us that, “what political theorists look at, speculate about, and contemplate,” involve the question of how we should organize ourselves.1 Moving beyond speculations, and contemplation about how States are born - and what justifies them - arguments, pro et contra who is fit to rule, and under what type of system, become the pressing questions of political theory. The history of political theory provides many examples of the various types of both people and systems of rule that have predicted, with some accuracy, what type of system and ruler would be best for any society. It is my intention to first, describe two of the more popular political theories on the systems of rule, those of Plato and J.S. Mill. Further, I will compare and

This simplistic view of human psychology is misleading as it represents little in comparison to the true needs and desires that permeate the human psyche. One of the more pervasive questions about The Republic of Plato, and surely the one that is most important in this exposition, is Plato's conception of who should rule. Plato's answer, of course, is that philosophers should rule. As Plato explains: “Unless,” I [Socrates] said, “the philosophers rule as kings...genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place...there is no rest from ills for the cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think for human kind, nor will the regime we have now described in speech ever come forth from nature...This is what for so long was causing my hesitation to speak: seeing how very paradoxical it would be to say. For it is hard to see that in no other city would there be private or public