Plato & The Polite Dictatorship Of Democracy

66Mustang

@KJEldridge97

If you related to Plato's thoughts, have you ever read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty"?

He criticises democracy and goes into a concept he calls the "Tyranny of the Majority" which in a lot of ways is quite similar to Plato's thoughts

You might find it interesting 👍

MW123

@66Mustang

You bringing up that book took me back a few years. Mill was not opposed to democracy, he saw representative democracy as the best system but worried about the majority dominating minority voices. He argued that democracy needs limits to protect freedoms such as free speech and fair treatment.

Legal and constitutional law courses use his idea of the “tyranny of the majority” because it illustrates the essential balance in liberal democracy between majority rule and the safeguarding of individual rights.

chiarieds

Hmm @KJEldridge97 - think 'truth' might be what a person perceives it to be, or what the majority may perceive it to be, so hard to define.

Again speaking from a personal perspective, the hardest thing I ever did was in working out the problems I felt I our family had; I had to remain objective to get there, so I had to leave my emotions aside. It wasn't about what I felt I knew (again), but proving it with hard fact.

I can't adequately reply about any ethics, but staying quiet when you should say the truth, to me is 'lying.' I have every respect for religious guidance, but your priest seemed to be possibly just covering all aspects? Tell your truth, why stay quiet about it?….no-one in this day & age hopefully has to protect themselves by lying.

I suppose the only thing you can go by is your own standard as to what is right.

I hope I listen to all people's opinions, but regardless will still listen to my own 'moral compass.'

We all engage in 'white lies' to kindly placate others, but other than that I feel your core beliefs about your own 'truth(s)' are important.

Could I have proven that there was an association between the 2 disorders I thought my family had, likely not without these 2 USA Drs then engaging with a geneticist who said there was an over 3 million chance against one that they were not associated. That validated their reason to do a retrospective study of thousands of their patients….only subsequently took them 9 years to publish this, so sometimes some things take an unfortunate amount of time until they are 'perceived/proven' to be true.

I'm only speaking about a very, very small part of medical knowledge, but our understanding about medicine & science keeps evolving, so perhaps what is considered 'truth' can sometimes be fluid as it too evolves?

I thought you would find this topic interesting @66Mustang - I thought about you straightaway, so hope you'll add what you think.

I hope that @Chris75_will also join in as asked, as it's good to get different perspectives.

MW123

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1090049#Comment_1090049

Thank you for opening up such a thoughtful thread. I’ve always felt that “truth” isn’t just about bare facts, it’s also about integrity, timing, and the way we hold ourselves accountable to others.

Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote “The cruelest lies are often told in silence”, which reminds me that omission can be just as misleading as a spoken falsehood.

Your priest’s advice highlights restraint, but I’d add that silence can sometimes distort reality if it leaves harm unchallenged. Truth, even when uncomfortable, tends to clear the air and restore integrity.

It’s rarely simple, and it often asks us to balance honesty with compassion, but it’s what allows trust to grow.

66Mustang

@MW123

It brought me back too!! I had to read On Liberty for my philosophy A level. I found learning about his life interesting too, I might be remembering wrong but I think he was raised by a relative as a kind of experiment, and was made to study all the time and not commit time to recreation, or something?

You're quite right that he wasn't opposed to democracy. I probably used the wrong word with "criticise"; I meant it in the sense that he picked it apart and scrutinised it, without fully opposing it. As you allude to I believe some of the most fundamental things need scrutinising, in order to keep them as virtuous as possible – nothing should be sacrosanct

@chiarieds

Your comments on truth are interesting, too! My understanding is that something is true if you believe it to be true; a significant outcome of working by that is that truth and fact are not automatically the same

When in the police, my dad when interviewing a child used to have a nice way of explaining whether to tell the truth. He'd ask them if they'd ever lied? Sometime's they'd sheepishly say "no" and my dad would say, "oh, I have, lots of times!". He'd then ask what they'd do if their best friend saved up all their pocket money and bought them a really thoughtful present, but it wasn't what they wanted…? They'd reply that they'd gratefully say "thank you, it's perfect" and he'd explain how that's a truly kind thing to do, and is relevant in so many aspects of life! But here you don't need to be kind to anyone

dhoni44551

That’s a thought-provoking question, Kyle. I think rules can protect people, especially the vulnerable, but they can also feel restrictive when they’re applied without empathy or flexibility something disabled people often experience. Maybe freedom in society isn’t absolute, but shaped by how fairly and humanely those rules are lived out.