Philosophy Report
Compare, contrast, and evaluate Plato and Mill on the relation between the individual and society. Two of the greatest minds in intellectual thought, Plato and Mill living in relatively different times, they both shared the same issues and concerns but with very distinct perspectives. Plato believed that freedom was justice in the soul while Mill was defending freedom within a democracy. Is one freedom better than another freedom? Plato tries to show that individual justice mirrors political justice. He believed that the soul of every individual has a three part structure interchangeable to the three classes of society.
Plato, being an idealist, he believed that his philosophers should be impeccable with knowledge. If “performing abortions” is morally offensive- in a Platonic society that debate wouldn’t happen, because it would be outright outlawed. So how would we know that it isn’t moral? We would never know. And THAT is the kind of suppression Mill disagrees with- isn’t finding out the truth more important than morality? Or is ignorance better than understanding? Mill’s views in the individual and society completely differ from Plato’s. Mill’s view in the individual has the experience and environment that Plato considers unimportant.
Mill also believed that a human could develop full potential only by offering the opportunity to define true ability in an individual. He was completely against forcing opinions from one group onto the other. It was doing injustice to the individual. Mill was for the people. He understood society’s struggles when it came to dangerous work stations to where the workers would be paid little to nothing at all. It was an injustice to them to be working so hard and not being appreciated for how hard of an effort workers put into their job. Freedom surely didn’t exist there and Mill strived for that to change.
Order custom essay Philosophy Report with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
Virtuous and expert rules are possible if and only if the rulers may be philosophers. Plato absolutely believed normal everyday people had no way in becoming a great leader because only intelligence and expertise is only found in Philosophers. He had the perfect picture of an ideal ruler. He also strictly believed one’s abilities portray the certain opportunities given to the philosopher while Mill believed in the complete opposite from that. Each person is naturally suited for a certain task. If you are gifted with intelligence, Plato believes it shouldn’t be put to waste.
For example, you are better off being a Doctor than being a construction worker. “The good city” is possible when “experts” are in charge of it. Only two worlds existed in Plato’s Theory of the Forms: The visible world and the intelligible world. Knowledge comes down to having knowledge of the forms. You cannot know what is false. Opinion/belief cannot ever be wrong. Knowledge is about what is real or if you have facts to prove whether it’s true or false. Ignorance is separate from pinion but is much clearer than ignorance. It’s part truth, part ignorance.
Mill thinks we should be free to do what we want, unless it doesn’t cause harm to society. It would be then, that kind of freedom should be restricted but when can these freedoms be restricted? Should it come to physically harming an individual to their brink of suicide? Physical harm and verbal harm play two different roles in society but I definitely believe are both dangerous. On Liberty, Mill makes funs of Plato that anyone can have an ideal society. Mill also defines justice in a variety of ways before making it into one whole thing.
Cite this Page
Philosophy Report. (2017, Feb 20). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/philosophy-report/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
