This is an essay that was recently written by my firstborn for one of her Humanities classes. It consists of three philosophical points of view on the concepts of happiness, leadership, justic, and honesty by three thinkers, Plato, aka, Socrates, Machiavelli, and John Stuart Mill. The paper is written in the form of a dialogue between these three.
Needless to say, I was terribly impressed with my firstborn’s mettle in this task, and wish to take a moment to congratulate her on her superb writing skills. This is nothing short of a “show” for me, which is why it finds a place in this section of my blog.
Sana Isaac
2/16/12
Seminar 1
The 4 Issues Discussed:
1. Happiness
2. Leadership
3. Justice
4. Honesty
The Three Philosophers Present:
1. Plato (P) 427–347 B.C.E
2. Machiavelli (M) 1469 – 1527
3. John Stuart Mill (JSM) 1806 –1873
M: Good afternoon, Gentlemen. I am honored to be in the presence of such cultivated minds; true intellect is not a common quality found in the majority of men.
P: Why thank you, Machiavelli, I am thrilled to begin discussing with both you and John Stuart Mill, issues which the general public might skim through, but philosopher’s minds dive into and explore.
JSM: I could not agree more with both of your statements, gentlemen. A topic which has always intrigued me is that of happiness, and whether or not it should be for the individual or for the whole—what are your opinions on the topic?
M: It is in human
nature to want to be happy, of course. However, were every individual allowed to act in ways to solely achieve their own personal happiness, what good would that be for the state and its ruler?
JSM: You pose an interesting question, one which triggers somewhat opposing opinions in me… but please, elaborate, Machiavelli.
M: Yes, thank you. The ideal ruler, or Prince of a republic, should be concerned with the happiness of his people, as it could lead to either their love or hate for him. However, he should also keep the larger picture of the stability of the state in mind. If a state is unstable, it is inefficient, and then what good is the trivial happiness of its citizens do to help the state? Ultimately, obtaining the goodwill of the people has little or nothing to do with a desire for the overall happiness of the populace. Rather, goodwill is a political instrument to ensure the stability of the prince’s reign.
JSM: From the perspective of a leader, or Prince, as you say, I can understand the importance of stability in a state, but do not agree with your opinion of lowering the importance of the happiness of the populace, or individuals, to a level on which it is simply used to attain the higher goal of a prince’s stable reign. I have formed the Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
P: John Stuart Mill, I have to say that I side more with Machiavelli at this point, why do you suggest that actions deemed as “right” are those which bring about the most happiness?
M: Yes, if a prince takes an action for his state, and it does not bring about happiness of the populace, I do not necessarily deem his act as “wrong”.
JSM: In my opinion, gentlemen, we just judge the ethical value of actions on the overall consequences it has for people, in terms of pleasure and pain. The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that the more pleasure and the least pain an action causes, the better it is morally. We should seek to perform those actions and adopt those policies that lead to the greatest happiness.
P: I’m sorry, but I must interject, Mr. Mill. I believe that societal flourishing is more important than the happiness of any one individual class or citizen. When happiness of the whole is attained, true justice is achieved. And after all, the nature of people is to want to serve in their society, and they are happy doing so in their respective niches. That concludes my point, I’m sorry for interrupting you, I don’t know what came over me.
JSM: Very interesting, Plato, never before had I thought of justice being related to happiness.
M: All this talk of happiness is making me sick, I’d much rather discuss characteristics of an ideal leader, if you both don’t mind.
P: Yes, let’s, i;turns out I too have much to say on the topic.
M: A leader should be virtuous, as virtue is essential to good politics and the common good. However, though a prince may seem virtuous on his surface, he should use any means to restore peace and order, even if it may entail cruelty, force, or deceit.
JSM: I have observed that patriots tried to limit the leader’s power in two ways: they gained immunities called “political liberties or rights.” The leader was thought to have a duty to respect these immunities, and there was a right of rebellion if these rights and liberties were infringed. Second, constitutional checks developed, under which the community or their representatives gained some power of consent over important acts of governance. Eventually, men progressed to a point where they wanted their leaders to be their servants, and to reflect their interests and will. It was thought that it was not necessary to limit this new kind of rulers power, because he was accountable to the people, and there was no fear of the people tyrannizing itself. However, when an actual democratic republic developed (The United States), it was realized that the people actually don’t rule themselves. Rather, the people with power exercise it over those without power. In p
articular, a majority may consciously try to oppress a minority. A good leader is one who identifies with his people, and has their best interest in mind.
M: I disagree with the soft-hearted leader you find to be most ideal. There are four main attributes that a prince should possess: intelligence, strength, determination, and tenaciousness. He must have the smarts to determine right from wrong. In times of trouble, he must know which path to take. A prince must also be strong physically, and emotionally strong to face whatever comes at him. His determination is very crucial in times of hardship. He must be willing to push on through the most difficult of times. He also must encourage his people and believe for himself that the struggle will soon be over. Furthermore, he should devote his time to military exercises—it is important to carry on continual deliberation. Plato, you have been quiet for some time now, what are your thoughts on the matter?
P: Forgive me, but you have a way of cornering—I mean, captivating, your audience, Machiavelli. My ideal state would be run by a philosopher king. A philosopher is… a wisdom-lover. He truly loves knowledge, opposed to simple sights or education, and is the only person who has access to Forms.
JSM: Forms? What are Forms?
P: Forms are the archetypal entities that exist in the metaphysical world behind their representations in the physical word. As I was saying, philosopher-kings are the ideal rulers, opposed to non-philosophers. Non-philosophers govern by opinions, beliefs, and self-interest—the philosopher ruler governs with virtue, justice, and no hidden motives. The philosopher is in love– in love with learning, knowledge, and truth. Though the non-philosopher ruler may be in love with the acquisition of knowledge, this is not enough, as knowledge is not necessarily the truth.
M: Plato, I must commend you on your eloquence. I admit, that at times, my rigidity permits me from seeing in a more metaphysical sense as you do.
P: Why thank you, Machiavelli. I feel we have exhausted this issue, shall we proceed to the next?
JSM: I am in agreement. What are your viewpoints on justice in a state? How does one define justice? How is it attained and sustained in a state?
M: Well, I believe that sometimes a ruler has to act harshly in order to ensure the greater good. This isn’t about some kind of ruthless power grab, but about helping the sum of the people. If a state rebels, though a prince may have to use cruelty to wipe it out and rebuild it, is not the more refined state that emerges more beneficial to the people? I believe that appropriate punishments for bad conduct or rewards for good, and the value of keeping promises and pacts are among the most prominent aspects of the concept of justice.
JSM: Machiavelli, the ruthless, yet logical qualities your opinions emit are quite fascinating. However, I will use utilitarianism to explain the special status we seem to grant to justice and to the violations of it. Justice is something men are keen to defend. Firstly, I would like to distinguish morality, the realm of duties, from expediency and worthiness by arguing that duties are those things we think people ought to be punished for not fulfilling. Justice is separated from other areas of morality, because it includes those duties to which others have correlative rights. Justice implies something which it is not only right to do, and wrong not to do, but which some individual person can claim from us as his moral right.
M: My mind does not operate in such a caring manner as yours does, Mr. Mill, but I commend you for it. Plato, you had previously mentioned your definition of justice, had you not?
P: Yes, briefly–justice is the happiness of the whole. Some many accuse me of making my citizens “poor and miserable”, but I act the way I do because I believe my actions to lead to the greater good for the people. I am dissatisfied with the previous degenerating conditions in Athens—this was in large part due to the excessive individualism people felt. I believe that justice is the remedy for curing these evils—justice can also be considered as specialization in a society, which leads to harmony. Furthermore, a state is divided into three types of people: the workers, soldiers, and the rulers. The children in the republic are
evaluated personally, purely according to their natural qualities. This is just.
M: Interesting. I cannot say I completely agree with your ideas, but this class system you speak of is fascinating. In my ideal republic, I had not considered instituting social classes such specificity as you have. Now, let us proceed to discussing our final issue of the virtue of honesty?
JSM: Yes, I concur. I truly feel that honesty is the best policy, and that an honest person will have a better chance of success than that of a rogue.
M: Mr. Mill, have you ever considered that total honesty is not always the best route to take? If everyone is free to tell you the truth, that really means their respect has fallen short. A prudent Prince should follow a middle course, by choosing certain discreet men from his subjects, and allowing them to speak their minds on any matter on which he asks their opinion, and on none other. But he should inquire about their opinion on everything, and after hearing what they have to say, should reflect and judge for himself.
P: On this issue, I lean more towards the ideas of Machiavelli, Mr. Mill. In my state, I imply something called “The Royal Lie”. Obviously, feeding it to the people is dishonest, but it establishes a sense of loyalty to the state and not to family sub-units. This leads to happiness of the populace, which further leads to justice. The lie states that everyone’s childhoods have been lies, and they were all born from Mother Nature. She placed gold into the future rulers or guardians, silver into the future auxiliaries or soldiers, and bronze into the future workers in the society. Everyone has their own niche in society—though this lie is dishonest, it gives people meaning and purpose and ensures a stable state. Honesty is for the most part, less profitable than dishonesty.
Yitzhak Rabin 3/1/1922 – 11/4/1995 Israeli Prime minister.
