Plato’s conception of the ideal state is an interesting attempt to sort out citizens into three distinct social classes. In his attempt, his motive for this division of labor can be attributed to a checks and balances system. But before describing the citizens within an ideal state, he describes the overall structure of an ideal state. He begins with the idea that each city needs three core components to function properly: a governing body to create laws, a defending body to protect the city from internal and external enemies, and a producing body responsible for creating and distributing goods.
As one can note from Plato’s proposal of the structure of an ideal state, trouble can occur in many instances. One such case is when the producers decide to over-produce due to greedy intentions. These same intentions can lead to criminal activities thus hindering the overall good of the city. Another instance can be when the defenders use their authority for wrong-doing. Or perhaps the governors decide to make laws favorable for themselves only. Plato believed that the only way make sure that none of the citizens take advantage of their for the sake of wrong. He addresses this issue by restricting entry into these three classes based on certain qualities and characteristics of which a citizen possesses.
Plato states that the ruling class, or guardians, should possess the virtue of wisdom. This is imperative because this class will be solely responsible for creating laws that will benefit the overall good of the city. Due to the fact that the governing body will have a great amount of power, they must also be citizens of good moral standing, which is to say they must have wisdom. Furthermore, Plato goes on to say that not anyone can have the ability to become a ruler, and only philosophers can become rulers. This is primarily because a true philosopher will not concern himself with worldly material possessions, but rather a constant pursuit of knowledge. Plato argues that this very fact, being a true philosopher, is sufficient enough to be an eligible candidate for a ruler position. Of course, he includes many other requirements.
Classification into the defending body is limited to those who possess true courage. These citizens are charged with the duty of carrying out their orders in defending the city from harm. It may seem as if this position is comparable to the job of a modern police officer. However, Plato makes it clear that not anyone is able to become a soldier out of whim. One must acquire courage by means of experience through pain and temptation. Thus, the process of becoming a soldier is not a desirable path to take, but being a soldier is a somewhat desirable profession. In terms of a soldiers soul, a soldier must have a spirited soul. A spirited souls’ function is to carry out the dictates of reason in practical life, courageously doing whatever the rulers have determined to be best.
All other citizens who do not possess either the virtue of knowledge or courage will be placed into the producer category. These producers are only responsible for creating and distributing goods among the city. However, we must note that it is very tempting for the producers to give-in to a capitalistic, greedy lifestyle. That is why the rulers must preserve the good of the city by telling the producers what and how much to produce. In this ideal city, the producers represent the appetitive part of the soul. For serving no purpose but to introduce worldly goods and services into the city, one can see why there is an inherent temptation for the producers to indulge in a capitalistic lifestyle.
Claiming that Plato’s ideal state mistreats non-guardian citizens because they do not have any freedom to do what they want holds much value. This is true in the sense that non-guardians do not have a choice of becoming guardians due to the fact that philosophers possess qualities that can not, or are very hard to acquire. Relating this concept to modern terms, it is to say that presidents are somewhat chosen from birth as theses rulers must have certain qualities. In America, this would do away with the idea of the right to choose one’s destiny. Furthermore, non-guardians will usually have no opinion in choosing which class they will belong to. This ideology can be interpreted as an injustice on a human beings’ free will, which may lead to serious implications.
However, this argument can also be seen as faulty claim when taking into account the scope of the issue at hand. If we can ascertain that certain citizens are inherently bad-willed, the simplest solution would be to not allow them to choose their fate at all. This new argument makes an assumption that people are naturally bad-willed until proven good. While this is a quite cynical view of a city, this may be the most practical approach when deciding the roles of citizens within the city. We can not give everyone the benefit of the doubt of being capable to choose their own destiny in the city. Under this logic we may observe a built-in security mechanism: if a citizen is bad he will never have the chance to choose his fate, and if a citizen is naturally good, then they would belong with the rulers or soldiers from the beginning. However, it is key to remember that this model will not always yield the correct classification of citizens, which is to say there is a possibility that good-citizens may never have the ability to become rulers or soldiers due no initial recognition as such.
On the other hand, it can be argued that Plato’s imaginary state mistreats the guardians because they are worse off helping the others than they would be on their own. It would seem foolish for the guardians to involve anyone else in their society, as anyone inferior to them will only do harm to their community. The easiest way to ensure overall good of the city is to stop the bad citizens from existing. However the main principle with this claim is that the guardians are helping the other citizens. This can be seen as an effortful endeavor on the guardians’ end. In this sense, there is no beneficial reason for the guardians to help the other citizens.
In sum, based on Plato’s conceptions of the ideal state and the inner-workings it presents along with it can be seen that it mistreats both the guardians as well as the citizens. In my opinion, Plato’s ideal city is incomplete; it lacks the core structure needed for a state to thrive. By limiting the city to three classes, we can not encapsulate the breadth of the city’s resources. Furthermore, I believe that Plato’s notion of ruler eligibility is highly flawed. By requiring all rulers to be philosophers, Plato limit’s the ruling class to only those who have no worldly, material interests. This is a quality of a weak ruler in the sense that proper rulers must share a common interest with the population they are ruling. Assume a case in which a ruler has a common interest with the population: money. Since most of the population desires money, the ruler may use this desire to control or sway the mass, to the rulers advantage. However, only a ruler who truly understands the desire for money can use this technique. Therefore a ruler can not be philosopher due to the lack of material desires. Nevertheless, Plato makes very strong claims and supports them by a wealth of information.
