Plato vs. John Stuart Mill: Ethics, Politics, and Freedom
**Comparison of Freedom and the State: Plato vs. John Stuart Mill**
Plato establishes a clear correlation between the individual’s character and the state. Depending on their nature and disposition, an individual will be a ruler, guardian, artisan, or farmer. Mill, however, does not categorize individuals in this way. He leaves the choice of profession open to each person, assigning work based on individual preference. From this standpoint, neither Mill nor Plato is strictly deterministic. Mill advocates for mandatory education, while Plato assigns education based on an individual’s inherent nature. Mill believes that the government should be elected, supporting democracy and representative government. Plato, conversely, argues that governance belongs to the aristocracy of virtue, the wise (philosophers). He believes that deviation from this ideal leads to the degradation of the state, with aristocracy being the most perfect form, followed by timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Mill, on the other hand, sees representative democracy as the best form of government.
Mill and Plato agree that the majority is not always right and acknowledge the dangers of democracy. However, their critiques differ. Plato fears that the masses are easily manipulated, while Mill focuses on the potential for the majority to oppress minorities. Shortly before his death, Plato envisioned a state founded on temporality, with a strict system of control governed by a nocturnal council and rigid legislation, even extending to children’s games. Mill opposes this kind of state intervention, arguing that it stifles individual freedom and hinders personal growth. Mill believes that industry should be regulated to prevent abuses, while Plato primarily focuses on an agrarian aristocracy, neglecting the role of industry. The Platonic state seeks stability and resists change, whereas Mill, influenced by Enlightenment ideals, embraces constant progress.
**Ethical Divergences: Plato and John Stuart Mill**
The ethical philosophies of Plato and Mill diverge on several key points. For Plato, ethics and politics are inseparable. He believes that individual good and happiness cannot be conceived independently of the good and justice of the city. Plato subordinates individual interests to the good of the city. Mill, while not denying the importance of a just society, believes that individual happiness is paramount. He posits that true happiness can only be achieved when everyone is happy.
Plato’s political theory is linked to his Theory of Ideas, where true knowledge resides in understanding the Forms, such as Goodness and Justice. Only those who grasp these Forms are fit to rule, as they possess true knowledge. For Mill, the concept of good is relative, depending on whether it produces a greater or lesser amount of welfare. Both Plato and Mill address happiness in their ethics. Mill, as a eudaimonist, considers happiness the highest human good. Plato’s ethics, however, is based on virtue, which he defines in multiple, non-exclusive ways: as wisdom, as purification, and as harmony. Mill, in contrast, sees the highest virtue in self-sacrifice for the collective good.
**Virtue and Happiness**
Plato bases virtue on knowledge. He initially defines a virtuous person as one who purifies their soul from passions, thus gaining access to the World of Ideas. Later, he admits that the “good” and virtuous life is a “mixture” that involves experiencing pleasure in moderation. Mill, on the other hand, considers the sacrifice of an individual for the collective good to be the highest virtue. For Plato, happiness is the ultimate goal of human existence, closely linked to virtue. He rejects the identification of happiness with pleasure, arguing against hedonism that a life centered solely on pleasure is not truly fulfilling. Mill, conversely, believes that pleasure, particularly collective pleasure, is essential to happiness. He advocates for a universal pleasure that benefits all. While Plato acknowledges the concupiscible aspect of the soul, he maintains that pleasures should be enjoyed in moderation to achieve true happiness. Mill, in contrast, actively promotes the pursuit of pleasure, especially when it contributes to the collective well-being.