This leads to a non-virtuous form of government, because if the choices are made by people who do not agree with, or believe the telos of the city-state, then the telos of the city-state will never be reached, therefore making the government non-virtuous. Aristotle adds that whenever large amounts of people get together to make decisions, it is foreseeable that personal bias will appear, and virtuous decisions cannot be made for the city-state. This cognitive analysis leads Aristotle to believe that a democracy’s notion of equality is a portion of the issue with a democracy being non-virtuous. Aristotle believes that, the poor are worried about obtaining more wealth, which means that they are placing their personal good above the common good whilst engaged in governance. For an individual to rule in a virtuous way, they must put the common good for the
Societies run off the power of the people, and some societies use a democracy as a form of power. There are people who say that for a democracy to survive that people do not need to be educated on all subjects, they also believe that asking questions or challenging “long-held ideas” is a waste of time, because no results will be formed by them. Then there are the people that feel that someone needs to be educated just enough to survive and questions or voicing opinions on “long-held ideas” should only be done when it is absolutely mandatory. Finally, there are the people (like me) that disagree with the people above. These people believe that all education is important.
In democracy the majority of the rule and the rule or poor does not assist the city-state in achieving telos. Hence, Aristotle believes democracy is not a good form of rule. According to Aristotle, democracy cannot be virtuous form of government because; of the way freedom is defined. “Democracies do not define freedom properly, everyone lives the way they want and toward what goals they want to attain” (Aristotle, p. 104). In order for a government to be considered virtuous its need to rule for the common good of its people.
These are some reason why most of the enlightenment thinkers did not believe in having a group run government. Take Thomas hobbes for example, he thinks everyone is born wicked and thats there is government, so that they can keep the people in line. (historical figure notes) Some of the Historical figures don't trust the people to make the right decision which is some cases is true. People can be blinded by how cunning someone is or home much money they have, after all they can be selfish and make the wrong decisions at times, but thats part of life. This demonstrates democracies weaknesses as it relates to process and
My understanding of the definition of a Democracy is that it is a form of government that gives power to the people. The difference between democracy and republic is for Democracy is its ownership is held by the population as a group. As for a Republic, the ownership is held by people as individuals. - Angelina Franco. In a Republic there is a constitution and makes sure that everyone is represented and no group becomes underrepresented.
Aristotle and Socrates and Plato’s beliefs have similarities mainly evident in their denouncement of democracy for the state. The views of Socrates expressed and written by his pupil Plato are vastly philosophical in nature and he promotes the idea of questioning life to achieve insight. The philosophers who possess the absolute truth are the best equipped to rule society according to Plato and his Allegory of the Cave. Conversely, Aristotle takes a more political science approach of discussing and analyzing various constitutions to determine the best form of government, where the rational beings in a society are the natural rulers. Aristotle promotes the idea of rule based on law rather than simple superiority.
Although not any philosopher can be a ruler, it is only through extensive education of the arts and logic can they have what Euripides would refer to as ‘proper judgment’. While these rulers would have extensive knowledge on arts and logic, they would not have learned anything about the interests of the Athenian citizens. The philosopher-rulers would be an elite minority group that has lived a different life from the rest of the citizens, therefore they would have no knowledge of the issues and interests of the population they would be representing. In Plato’s ideal state, he places someone he deems fit to rule, and the state becomes authoritarian. The ruler becomes a benevolent dictator, while the citizens have no rights, only duties.
Having freedom gives you equality however being given equality does not necessarily give you freedom. This is stated in this manner to emphasize how democracy is dependent on the idea of equality. Any form of government in which there are restrictions as to who gets to have a part in the government is considered more of an oligarchy because it would limit the government to be ran by a small group of
Modern democracy is intended to be representative, yet it seems that corruption and political domination by the upper class have resulted in public disillusionment in politics. In India, for example, polls have shown that the majority prefers democracy, but the level of trust in elected officials is very low due to wealth-based campaigning, nepotism, and lack of transparency (Sen, pg. 90) in the election system. Thus it can be said that in democratic countries where corruption is prevalent, democracy can be undermined by an undemocratic system. The principles of democracy can also be undermined when equality ... ... middle of paper ... ...shown to be more stable and permanent than other forms of government that have been tried.
What he doesn't consider though, is that the majority of the rulers in a democracy are qualified in ways that he doesn't actually acknowledge as legitimate. The leaders of democracies are confident and successful in the roles they play within their own specific societies. I think that Plato is mistaken by only comparing their ruling abilities to the standards in that of a tyranny. He bases most of his ideas only on a society that he knows and doesn't allow for variety or change in his thoughts. Much of his argument is repetitive and unresearched so I believe that without stronger opposition he would ultimately lose the battle in defending an aristocracy over a democracy.