Is a philosopher king/benevolent dictator preferable?

[an anarchist]

Is a “philosopher king” or “benevolent dictator” an ideal political system?

I am restarting Plato’s The Republic. I’ve read through it partly before, but that was too long ago so i restart now. But I do know his conclusion is that philosophers should be in charge. This is similar to the idea of a “benevolent dictator”, no? The nice smart guy with no ill will has supreme control and everything will be alright is the idea.

What do you guys think of the concepts of “benevolent dictator” and “philosopher king”? I wasn’t sure if this should go in philosophy or political debates, but ultimately I think the debate is about political systems so I put it here.

As a supporter of anarchist thought, I like the idea of a benevolent dictator. I’d support that over democracy, that’s for sure. One of my reasons is that I might be able to be convinced to be Supreme Dictator of the World, and I think the world would be better for it if I was.

 

[Augustus]

If you can be assured of the right person then it is likely better, the problem is you can’t be assured of the right person.

Few things could be worse than giving unlimited power to one of the wrong “intellectuals”

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you can be assured if the right person then it is likely better, the problem is you can’t be assured if the right person.

Few things could be worse than giving unlimited power to one of the wrong “intellectuals”

This. Power corrupts sooner or later; it's usually a matter of when, not if. That "benevolent dictator" would almost invariably someday become an abusive autocrat if not restrained either by time (e.g., term limits) or checks and balances to reduce their power. That's just human nature.

 

[an anarchist]

If you can be assured of the right person then it is likely better, the problem is you can’t be assured if the right person.

Few things could be worse than giving unlimited power to one of the wrong “intellectuals”

Hypothetically, if we could be assured of one’s philosopherness and benevolence, then what say you?

 

[an anarchist]

This. Power corrupts sooner or later; it's usually a matter of if, not when. That "benevolent dictator" will almost invariably someday become an abusive autocrat. That's just human nature.

I generally agree with you on this. That’s part of why I am “an anarchist”. I believe that the existence of a State attracts abusive actors to fill the roles of a state.

Why don’t you apply your logic to government in general? I am thinking the inverse of what you are thinking. I think it’d be easier to make sure one individual is benevolent and make them in charge than it is to make a government consisting of many individuals to work benevolently.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why don’t you apply your logic to government in general? I am thinking the inverse of what you are thinking. I think it’d be easier to make sure one individual is benevolent and make them in charge than it is to make a government consisting of many individuals to work benevolently.

Ensuring that the law is sound and that it is properly enforced doesn't necessitate benevolence from everyone in government; it necessitates only that a sufficient number of officials respect and obey the law. One of the main reasons the law exists is precisely that not everyone can be trusted to respect others' rights and uphold their own obligations otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Hypothetically, if we could be assured of one’s philosopherness and benevolence, then what say you?

If you could be assured of a hyper competent ruler of the utmost moral probity then of course it would be better.

Elected governments aren’t very good after all. They are just better than giving all the power to incompetent rulers who can’t be replaced.

 

[an anarchist]

Ensuring that the law is sound and that it is properly enforced doesn't necessitate benevolence from everyone in government; it necessitates only that a sufficient number of officials respect and obey the law. One of the main reasons the law exists is precisely that not everyone can be trusted to respect others' rights and uphold their own obligations otherwise.

For the sake of conversation, I’ll agree that laws exist in order to ensure the respect of people’s rights. In theory you are perhaps right and I’ll leave it at that.

I think what inspires the idea of a benevolent dictator or philosopher king is that the law itself is not arbitrated by individuals who should be arbitrating laws. The law cannot be trusted to be left to individuals who are not benevolent.

One reason I say I would trust myself as Supreme Dictator is because I trust my intent and insight. How often do we see negative actors fill the roles of modern government? And how often do the citizens find themselves trapped with these politicians by the very political system the citizens prop up?

 

[Stevicus]

Is a “philosopher king” or “benevolent dictator” an ideal political system?

I am restarting Plato’s The Republic. I’ve read through it partly before, but that was too long ago so i restart now. But I do know his conclusion is that philosophers should be in charge. This is similar to the idea of a “benevolent dictator”, no? The nice smart guy with no ill will has supreme control and everything will be alright is the idea.

What do you guys think of the concepts of “benevolent dictator” and “philosopher king”? I wasn’t sure if this should go in philosophy or political debates, but ultimately I think the debate is about political systems so I put it here.

As a supporter of anarchist thought, I like the idea of a benevolent dictator. I’d support that over democracy, that’s for sure. One of my reasons is that I might be able to be convinced to be Supreme Dictator of the World, and I think the world would be better for it if I was.

I'm against the idea of any single individual holding absolute power. However, a committee or council of a number of learned, enlightened, benevolent individuals might produce the same effect.

 

[Augustus]

This. Power corrupts sooner or later; it's usually a matter of when, not if. That "benevolent dictator" would almost invariably someday become an abusive autocrat if not restrained either by time (e.g., term limits) or checks and balances to reduce their power. That's just human nature.

Also that “philosophers”/intellectuals are not always the best to rule as they get carried away with “rational” theories that forget to account for the fact humans aren’t rational.

As Orwell said (roughly) some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them.

 

[an anarchist]

I'm against the idea of any single individual holding absolute power. However, a committee or council of a number of learned, enlightened, benevolent individuals might produce the same effect.

Oooooor, we can have a singular Supreme Dictator, and this one guy has a committee of benevolent imaginary friends! I say this mostly unironically.

 

[Augustus]

One reason I say I would trust myself as Supreme Dictator is because I trust my intent and insight. How often do we see negative actors fill the roles of modern government? And how often do the citizens find themselves trapped with these politicians by the very political system the citizens prop up?

Robespierre was known as “the incorruptible”, he was absolutely certain he could be trusted as the supreme leader and that the success of the revolution depended on it.

Most of us have the conceit that we would be the good one. Most of us would fail the test in the real world.

 

[Stevicus]

Robespierre was known as “the incorruptible”, he was absolutely certain he could be trusted as the supreme leader and that the success of the revolution depended on it.

Most of us have the conceit that we would be the good one. Most of us would fail the test in the real world.

I would suggest that many such despotic and tyrannical leaders might have very well have thought they were the "good ones." Even Hitler probably thought he was "good," within his own twisted perceptions of morality. Evil never knows that it's evil. They always think they're good.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is a “philosopher king” or “benevolent dictator” an ideal political system?

I am restarting Plato’s The Republic. I’ve read through it partly before, but that was too long ago so i restart now. But I do know his conclusion is that philosophers should be in charge. This is similar to the idea of a “benevolent dictator”, no? The nice smart guy with no ill will has supreme control and everything will be alright is the idea.

What do you guys think of the concepts of “benevolent dictator” and “philosopher king”? I wasn’t sure if this should go in philosophy or political debates, but ultimately I think the debate is about political systems so I put it here.

As a supporter of anarchist thought, I like the idea of a benevolent dictator. I’d support that over democracy, that’s for sure. One of my reasons is that I might be able to be convinced to be Supreme Dictator of the World, and I think the world would be better for it if I was.

Here's the thing about any sort of dictator: what you find preferable is irrelevant.

 

[Augustus]

I would suggest that many such despotic and tyrannical leaders might have very well have thought they were the "good ones." Even Hitler probably thought he was "good," within his own twisted perceptions of morality. Evil never knows that it's evil. They always think they're good.

Reminds me of this quote:

Even a cursory glance at history should convince one that individual crimes committed for selfish motives play a quite insignificant part in the human tragedy, compared to the numbers massacred in unselfish loyalty to one’s tribe, nation, dynasty, church, or political ideology, ad majorem gloriam dei... homicide committed for selfish motives is a statistical rarity in all cultures. Homicide for unselfish motives is the dominant phenomenon of man's history. His tragedy is not an excess of aggression but an excess of devotion... it's loyalty and devotion which makes the fanatic." - Arthur Koestler

 

[Stevicus]

Here's the thing about any sort of dictator: what you find preferable is irrelevant.

Unless he gets to be the dictator.

But then, an anarchist dictator is a juxtaposition I can't get my mind around this early on a Saturday morning.

 

[an anarchist]

Unless he gets to be the dictator.

But then, an anarchist dictator is a juxtaposition I can't get my mind around this early on a Saturday morning.

The only rule is that there are no rules

 

[Truthseeker]

I am restarting Plato’s The Republic. I’ve read through it partly before, but that was too long ago so i restart now. But I do know his conclusion is that philosophers should be in charge. This is similar to the idea of a “benevolent dictator”, no? The nice smart guy with no ill will has supreme control and everything will be alright is the idea.

I seem to remember that there was at least one Emperor of Rome who was a philosopher, who governed well and relatively benevolently. The was a series of "good" Emperors:

The Five Good Emperors of Rome were a group of emperors who ruled the Roman Empire from 96–180 CE:

Nerva: Ruled from 96–98 CE, Nerva was the first of the Five Good Emperors. He was a senator and member of the imperial court before becoming emperor. His reign was brief, but he brought stability to the empire after Domitian's assassination.

Trajan: Ruled from 98–117 CE.

Hadrian: Ruled from 117–138 CE. He was an active emperor who spent much of his time outside of Italy. His reign was relatively peaceful, though it was marked by the Jewish revolt.

Antoninus Pius: Ruled from 138–161 CE.

Marcus Aurelius: Ruled from 161–180 CE.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Latin: [ˈmaːrkʊs au̯ˈreːliʊs antoːˈniːnʊs]; English: /ɔːˈriːliəs/ or-EE-lee-əs;[2] 26 April 121 – 17 March 180) was Roman emperor from 161 to 180 and a Stoic philosopher. He was a member of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty, the last of the rulers later known as the Five Good Emperors and the last emperor of the Pax Romana, an age of relative peace, calm, and stability for the Roman Empire lasting from 27 BC to 180 AD. He served as Roman consul in 140, 145, and 161.

Marcus Aurelius - Wikipedia

However, here is the evaluation of his son and successor, Commodus.

Biological sons of the emperor, if there were any, were considered heirs;[299] however, it was only the second time that a "non-adoptive" son had succeeded his father, the only other having been a century earlier when Vespasian was succeeded by his son Titus. Historians have criticized the succession to Commodus, citing Commodus's erratic behaviour and lack of political and military acumen.[298] At the end of his history of Marcus's reign, Cassius Dio wrote an encomium to the emperor, and described the transition to Commodus in his own lifetime with sorrow:[300]

[Marcus] did not meet with the good fortune that he deserved, for he was not strong in body and was involved in a multitude of troubles throughout practically his entire reign. But for my part, I admire him all the more for this very reason, that amid unusual and extraordinary difficulties he both survived himself and preserved the empire. Just one thing prevented him from being completely happy, namely, that after rearing and educating his son in the best possible way he was vastly disappointed in him. This matter must be our next topic; for our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day.
–Dio lxxi. 36.3–4[300]

Here is what happened under Commodus:

Commodus (/ˈkɒmədəs/;[4] 31 August 161 – 31 December 192) was a Roman emperor who ruled from 177 until his assassination in 192. For the first three years of his reign he was co-emperor with his father Marcus Aurelius. Commodus' sole rule, starting with the death of Marcus in 180, is commonly thought to mark the end of a golden age of peace and prosperity in the history of the Roman Empire (the Pax Romana).

Commodus accompanied his father during the Marcomannic Wars in 172 and on a tour of the Eastern provinces in 176. The following year, he became the youngest emperor and consul up to that point, at the age of 16. His solo reign saw less military conflict than that of Marcus Aurelius, but internal intrigues and conspiracies abounded, goading Commodus to an increasingly dictatorial style of leadership. This culminated in his creating a deific personality cult, including his performances as a gladiator in the Colosseum. Throughout his reign, Commodus entrusted the management of affairs to his palace chamberlain and praetorian prefects, namely Saoterus, Perennis and Cleander.

Commodus was assassinated by the wrestler Narcissus in 192, ending the Nerva–Antonine dynasty. He was succeeded by Pertinax, the first claimant in the tumultuous Year of the Five Emperors.

Commodus - Wikipedia

My point is there is a danger of becoming dictatorial and repressive if you are an emperor, but it doesn't always happen. It depends on the circumstances and character of the individual ruling. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus made a mistake in allowing his son to be Emperor.

 

[Quintessence]

It's interesting that there is an assumption of this person being male. And that this is so rarely questioned. That, in of itself, signals significant problems with the idea.

 

[an anarchist]

It's interesting that there is an assumption of this person being male. And that this is so rarely questioned. That, in of itself, signals significant problems with the idea.

Should I always use gender neutral/inclusive language? I did not think of saying “Philosopher King/Queen” as that is not the term. Sure, maybe Plato could have never considered a woman in the role of ruler, but I never explicitly stated in the OP that the ruler would have to be male. Though I understand that the word “king” is male. So that’s why I am asking if I need to make sure to always use gender inclusive language even when it isn’t traditionally used in a specific context. Because i present the idea absent of thinking about the gender of the ruler, and you then say that i made the assumption that the person is male and turn the conversation a different way than i intend it to go.