Who Should Rule? A Journey into Plato's Ideal Kingdom

Who Should Rule?

Who should rule? A king who was born into a royal bloodline? A military leader who has triumphed in battle? The richest person in the country? Someone the people elect? What about the person with the most YouTube subscribers? There are many different ways for a group of people to be ruled and some with seemingly better outcomes. Plato had an interesting but controversial idea that society should be led by a Philosopher-King.

What Is A Philosopher-King?

Plato’s concept of the Philosopher-King comes from his work “The Republic,” where he imagines the ideal society. In Plato’s vision, this society is led not by the richest or the most powerful, but by those who have the greatest wisdom and understanding—Philosopher-Kings.

A Philosopher-King is a leader who loves wisdom, truth, and knowledge above all else. They are deeply committed to the common good and aren’t swayed by personal desires or ambitions. Plato believed that these Philosopher-Kings would rule justly and wisely, not out of a lust for power, but out of a sense of duty and commitment to their subjects.

Democracy & Philosopher Kings

The Philosopher-King idea is relevant today as it challenges us to think about what we value in our leaders. In modern democracies, we elect our leaders, and Plato’s concept prompts us to ask: are we choosing individuals who demonstrate a love for wisdom, truth, and the common good? Or are we swayed by charisma, wealth, or promises that might not be in the best interest of everyone?

For example, consider an election for a local representative. One candidate may promise lower taxes, which sounds attractive. But another candidate, while also advocating for fiscal responsibility, emphasizes the importance of education, infrastructure, and healthcare, and outlines well-thought-out policies for maintaining these services even if it means slightly higher taxes. This second candidate may not be making the most immediately attractive promise, but they are demonstrating a commitment to the long-term welfare and stability of the community, which aligns with the idea of the Philosopher-King.

Plato’s Philosopher-King can serve as a model for the type of leaders we choose in our societies and the values we uphold in our leadership—wisdom, a pursuit of truth, and a deep concern for the common good.

What Could Go Wrong!?

Plato was a smart guy. But many other philosophers have come after him who would fiercely disagree with his Philosopher-King model of ruling others.

Aristotle: Aristotle was a student of Plato, but he didn’t agree with everything his teacher said. Aristotle thought that having just one Philosopher-King might not be the best idea. It’s like when you’re doing a group project at school. If only one person decides everything, they might miss out on good ideas from others. Aristotle thought that the best decisions are made when more people are involved, sort of like having a council of wise people, not just one.
Karl Popper: Karl Popper is a more recent philosopher. He thought that the idea of a Philosopher-King might make leaders too powerful, kind of like how in some video games, one player might become too strong and ruin the game for everyone else. Popper thought it was more important to have rules that stop leaders from becoming too powerful, like having turns in leading, or letting people vote to choose their leaders, kind of like how you might elect class representatives.
John Locke: John Locke was a philosopher who thought that leaders should always get their power from the people they’re leading. This is like saying that in a game of “king of the castle,” the king should only be king if everyone playing the game agrees. This way, the king can’t just boss people around—they have to listen to what the other players want.

So, these philosophers all had different ideas about what makes a good leader. They all thought that being wise and fair was important, but they also thought that there should be rules to make sure leaders listen to the people they’re leading. It’s kind of like how the best games are the ones where everyone gets a say, not just the person who’s “it” or the person with the most points.

Discussion

Now that you are familiar with Plato’s Philosopher-King concept, summarize it to your kids. You might also use the following analogy to help them understand:

Alright, so you know how sometimes your parents or teachers tell you that it’s important to always tell the truth and love learning new things? Well, Plato, a very wise man who lived a very long time ago, thought that the people who love truth and wisdom the most should be the leaders, or kings, of the land. He called these people “Philosopher-Kings.”

Imagine you and your friends are playing a game where you pretend to rule a kingdom. Each of you has a different job: one friend is the bravest, so they protect the kingdom; another is really good at making things, so they make food and clothes and toys. But someone needs to make decisions for the kingdom: when to play, when to rest, what rules to follow. Who would you choose? Plato would suggest someone who’s really fair, smart, and likes learning—kind of like the best teacher you’ve ever had.

So, in Plato’s mind, the best leaders are those who love learning, are really wise, fair, and always want to do what’s best for everyone. Just like your best teacher or your kindest friend.

Can you think of some ways Plato’s Philosopher King idea could go wrong?
Is it enough to loves wisdom, truth, and knowledge above all else?
Do you think the other philosophers (Aristotle, Popper and Locke) had good points?
In what ways does a democratic system differ from or compare to Plato’s ideas?

Activity

Materials needed: Paper, markers, a crown (could be made from paper), and a space for the kids to gather.

Activity Instructions:

Introduction: Begin by explaining that they are all members of a kingdom and need to choose a leader. Discuss the idea of a Philosopher-King – a wise and fair leader who loves learning and always makes decisions for the good of all.
Choosing the Philosopher-King: Have the kids suggest qualities that a great leader should have. Write these on a piece of paper. Now ask the kids to nominate a Philosopher-King among themselves based on these qualities. The chosen person gets to wear the crown and makes decisions in the next part of the game.
Ruling the Kingdom: Set up several scenarios where the Philosopher-King has to make decisions. For instance, there’s only one piece of candy left, who should get it? A dispute arises between two kingdom members, how should it be resolved?
Discussion: After each decision, discuss with the group. Was that a good decision? Why or why not? Let the kids express their opinions. This will allow them to think critically about the decisions made by the leader.
Alternatives to Philosopher-King: Next, introduce the ideas of Aristotle, Popper, and Locke. Explain that some people believe decisions should be made as a group (Aristotle), that rules should be in place to limit the power of the leader (Popper), and that leaders should have the agreement of the people (Locke).
The Council, The Rules, and The Agreement: Now, let the kids form a council to make decisions, create rules for the leader, and ensure everyone agrees on who should be the leader. Repeat the decision-making scenarios and observe if there are any changes in the outcomes.
Reflection: Finally, ask the children to reflect on the two different styles of leadership. Which one did they think was fairer? Which one did they prefer and why?

Remember, the goal is not to force kids to choose one style over the other but to get them thinking critically about leadership, fairness, and decision-making. Encourage them to consider different viewpoints and weigh the pros and cons.

Who Should Rule? A Journey into Plato’s Ideal Kingdom