Untitled Document

The topic of authority is a widely debated subject that has been the cause of wealth, and poverty, wars, and the lack thereof. The idea of authority is as complex as the philosophers who debated it. Thus far this course has dealt with three major philosophical ideas of the ancient world: those of Mo Tzu, Plato and the Judeo-Christian book ofIsaiah. These schools of thought have somewhat different views of how authority should be established, but they do agree on the one, very vague, idea that the righteous and capable should rule. The topic of discussion, therefore, should be to determine how each of these philosophies defines “righteousness” and compare them to our own Western political and authoritative ideologies as well as my own ideas of how authority should be developed.

We should first examine Mo Tzu’s claim of decadence within the ruling class of ancient China. He determined that the cause of the decline of governmental effectiveness was due to the failure of rulers and high officials to “honor the worthy and employ the capable in their administrations”.[1] Mo Tzu believed that when the unrighteous are rewarded, the righteous are encouraged to adopt the ways of the unrighteous. Conversely, when the unrighteous are rewarded, the status quo prevails, and the unrighteous realize that it is more beneficial to remain in their current state of morality.[2]

What, then, does Mo Tzu consider “righteous”? Benevolence, according to Mo Tzu, is the key to righteousness. In order for a man to be truly benevolent, he must practice “universal love”. Mo Tzu described universality as the source of all good, and its antithesis, partiality, as the source of all evil. Mo Tzu’s theory of Universal love is the idea that one should promote what is beneficial to the world, and eliminate what is harmful without partiality of any kind toward anyone or anything.[3]
Mo Tzu used his ideology of universal love to establish three theoretical principles in order to achieve effective and efficient governance. “If the titles and positions of worthy men are not exalted enough, then the people will not respect such men; if their stipends are not generous, then the people will not have confidence in them; and if their orders are not enforced, then the people will not stand in awe of them”.[4] Using the aforementioned guidelines, Mo Tzu illustrated his view of establishing and preserving authority.
Similarly, the book of Isaiah attempts to promote justice and humanity by discrediting ritual sacrifices made by those who deal unjustly with others, particularly the less privileged and the poor.[5]   Regarding authority, the book speaks of a future ruler that would “judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall… slay the wicked”.[6] The writers of Isaiah tend to be rather vague concerning the exact qualities of an ideal leader, but unlike Mo Tzu, Isaiah favors the authority figure who is actively partial toward the meek and underprivileged. Isaiah described a vengeful God that is obviously partial toward his chosen people.

Plato, on the other hand, was much more succinct and complex in retelling Socrates’ vision of who should be the ruling authority figures of society. Socrates, through Plato, believes that the perfect society would be entrenched in the “noble lie” in which the general public is made to believe that they were born into their lot in life.[7] The upper echelon, or born ruling class in this scenario would be the philosophers, the thinkers. In theory, these “philosopher kings” would be the only individuals capable of both knowing what is best for the whole of society, and maintaining the noble lie. Plato’s perfect society would be based on the premise that the people born into a lower class would have no way of infiltrating the higher classes. This philosophy seems to have manifested itself into our current form of government albeit in forms that Socrates and Plato may have discredited.

Today, the leaders of our society exist in terms very much like what Plato described. Society is lead by a representative system that effectively separates the leaders from the followers. There are people who know and understand the inner-workings of government and there is a general understanding that the masses are both incapable of understanding everything that affects their lives, and unwilling to undertake the added stress and responsibility that comes with knowledge of that sort. Whether they realize it or not, the common citizens appoint representatives to govern and to deal with the problems and situations that the citizens, themselves, may not be able to comprehend.

The fundamental difference between Plato’s Republic and our present form of republic is that every United States citizen has a theoretical chance of becoming a member of the “elite” ruling class.
My philosophy on government and authority is similar in many respects to both Plato’s Republic and the current system of the United States. I thoroughly believe that the vast majority of people are not prepared to deal with the realities of their own existence in a world sense. To an extent, this may be due to a lack of natural ability. I believe however, that the unwillingness of citizens in general to self-educate themselves about the world they live in negates any claim they may have to govern themselves. Apart from the institutionalized public education system, those who want to be involved in the governing of any kind should be able to think critically and have the ability to develop a well-thought out world view by any means available and necessary.

I do not believe that everyone over the age of eighteen should be allowed to vote. In my opinion, there should at least be a literacy requirement and as well as a demonstrated knowledge of important issues. I make no claim that any one school of thought is better than another, only that those who choose leaders and aspire to be leaders should be able to do so only after being at least adequately informed as to the consequences of such actions and aspirations.

The ideologies of Mo Tzu, Isaiah, and Plato concerning authority have shown differing views of who should have authority. The philosophers agree that the ones who are meant to rule should do so, but neither agree nor disagree on who is meant to rule. Mo Tzu claims that the benevolent, universal man should rule. Both Isaiah and Plato may have argued that their visions of leadership included but were not limited to Mo Tzu’s idea of benevolence. Isaiah and Plato however, contended that the achievement of benevolence must include forms of partiality, and realize that true universality may be unattainable. Contemporary society has taken into account these philosophies along with many others in order to produce a hybrid ideology that is continually adapting in a quickly changing world.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mo Tzu, Basic Writings, trans. Burton Watson
(New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963), 18.
[2] Ibid, 19.
[3] Ibid, 40
[4] Ibid. 24.[5]"Isaiah," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[6] Isaiah, The Holy Bible-The New King James Version, (Thomas Nelson, 1983), 11:4.
[7] Plato, The Republic, 414-15, 459-60.

Back to: Home \| Archive
Kris Baumgartner on : Authority The Following is a Special Guest Column By Kris Baumgartner. Enjoy, and please, if you have any comments, BRING IT ON! to the usual feedback form.	February 22, 2001
The topic of authority is a widely debated subject that has been the cause of wealth, and poverty, wars, and the lack thereof. The idea of authority is as complex as the philosophers who debated it. Thus far this course has dealt with three major philosophical ideas of the ancient world: those of Mo Tzu, Plato and the Judeo-Christian book ofIsaiah. These schools of thought have somewhat different views of how authority should be established, but they do agree on the one, very vague, idea that the righteous and capable should rule. The topic of discussion, therefore, should be to determine how each of these philosophies defines “righteousness” and compare them to our own Western political and authoritative ideologies as well as my own ideas of how authority should be developed. We should first examine Mo Tzu’s claim of decadence within the ruling class of ancient China. He determined that the cause of the decline of governmental effectiveness was due to the failure of rulers and high officials to “honor the worthy and employ the capable in their administrations”.[1] Mo Tzu believed that when the unrighteous are rewarded, the righteous are encouraged to adopt the ways of the unrighteous. Conversely, when the unrighteous are rewarded, the status quo prevails, and the unrighteous realize that it is more beneficial to remain in their current state of morality.[2] What, then, does Mo Tzu consider “righteous”? Benevolence, according to Mo Tzu, is the key to righteousness. In order for a man to be truly benevolent, he must practice “universal love”. Mo Tzu described universality as the source of all good, and its antithesis, partiality, as the source of all evil. Mo Tzu’s theory of Universal love is the idea that one should promote what is beneficial to the world, and eliminate what is harmful without partiality of any kind toward anyone or anything.[3] Mo Tzu used his ideology of universal love to establish three theoretical principles in order to achieve effective and efficient governance. “If the titles and positions of worthy men are not exalted enough, then the people will not respect such men; if their stipends are not generous, then the people will not have confidence in them; and if their orders are not enforced, then the people will not stand in awe of them”.[4] Using the aforementioned guidelines, Mo Tzu illustrated his view of establishing and preserving authority. Similarly, the book of Isaiah attempts to promote justice and humanity by discrediting ritual sacrifices made by those who deal unjustly with others, particularly the less privileged and the poor.[5] Regarding authority, the book speaks of a future ruler that would “judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall… slay the wicked”.[6] The writers of Isaiah tend to be rather vague concerning the exact qualities of an ideal leader, but unlike Mo Tzu, Isaiah favors the authority figure who is actively partial toward the meek and underprivileged. Isaiah described a vengeful God that is obviously partial toward his chosen people. Plato, on the other hand, was much more succinct and complex in retelling Socrates’ vision of who should be the ruling authority figures of society. Socrates, through Plato, believes that the perfect society would be entrenched in the “noble lie” in which the general public is made to believe that they were born into their lot in life.[7] The upper echelon, or born ruling class in this scenario would be the philosophers, the thinkers. In theory, these “philosopher kings” would be the only individuals capable of both knowing what is best for the whole of society, and maintaining the noble lie. Plato’s perfect society would be based on the premise that the people born into a lower class would have no way of infiltrating the higher classes. This philosophy seems to have manifested itself into our current form of government albeit in forms that Socrates and Plato may have discredited. Today, the leaders of our society exist in terms very much like what Plato described. Society is lead by a representative system that effectively separates the leaders from the followers. There are people who know and understand the inner-workings of government and there is a general understanding that the masses are both incapable of understanding everything that affects their lives, and unwilling to undertake the added stress and responsibility that comes with knowledge of that sort. Whether they realize it or not, the common citizens appoint representatives to govern and to deal with the problems and situations that the citizens, themselves, may not be able to comprehend. The fundamental difference between Plato’s Republic and our present form of republic is that every United States citizen has a theoretical chance of becoming a member of the “elite” ruling class. My philosophy on government and authority is similar in many respects to both Plato’s Republic and the current system of the United States. I thoroughly believe that the vast majority of people are not prepared to deal with the realities of their own existence in a world sense. To an extent, this may be due to a lack of natural ability. I believe however, that the unwillingness of citizens in general to self-educate themselves about the world they live in negates any claim they may have to govern themselves. Apart from the institutionalized public education system, those who want to be involved in the governing of any kind should be able to think critically and have the ability to develop a well-thought out world view by any means available and necessary. I do not believe that everyone over the age of eighteen should be allowed to vote. In my opinion, there should at least be a literacy requirement and as well as a demonstrated knowledge of important issues. I make no claim that any one school of thought is better than another, only that those who choose leaders and aspire to be leaders should be able to do so only after being at least adequately informed as to the consequences of such actions and aspirations. The ideologies of Mo Tzu, Isaiah, and Plato concerning authority have shown differing views of who should have authority. The philosophers agree that the ones who are meant to rule should do so, but neither agree nor disagree on who is meant to rule. Mo Tzu claims that the benevolent, universal man should rule. Both Isaiah and Plato may have argued that their visions of leadership included but were not limited to Mo Tzu’s idea of benevolence. Isaiah and Plato however, contended that the achievement of benevolence must include forms of partiality, and realize that true universality may be unattainable. Contemporary society has taken into account these philosophies along with many others in order to produce a hybrid ideology that is continually adapting in a quickly changing world. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] Mo Tzu, Basic Writings, trans. Burton Watson (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963), 18. [2] Ibid, 19. [3] Ibid, 40 [4] Ibid. 24.[5]"Isaiah," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. [6] Isaiah, The Holy Bible-The New King James Version, (Thomas Nelson, 1983), 11:4. [7] Plato, The Republic, 414-15, 459-60.