Theories on Community Togetherness and Individual Autonomy

Plato’s theory stresses community togetherness, while John Stuart Mill emphasizes individual separation and autonomy. In my point of view, differences between their characterizations of an optimal regime derive from their different conceptions of the good life and their different epistemology. At the beginning of this essay, I would present a brief description of both theories on politics and analysis of their different features—emphasis on togetherness or on individuality. Then, I would give a characterization of their different views of good life, which would figure out reasons why they would choose different regime of different feature. That is, different regime is instrumental to maintain different conceptions of good life respectively. As a subordinate point of view, I would also present their different views of epistemology and human nature. At the end of this essay, I would present my point of views about the good life and vision of politics. 

When it comes to the issue of Plato’s politics and its features, I focus on his argument in his Republic. In another words, it is possible that I might neglect some of his other arguments in his other monographs. According to Plato in Republic, everyone should act in accordance with the common good of the state. Thus, Justice lies in the preservation of the hierarchy of the state in which ruling guardians, auxiliary guardians, and producers are well-ordered, and the standard to sorting out those people into different class lies mainly on people’s talents and trainings. The reason is that when people are acting according to the hierarchy and laws delivered by the ruling class, the common good or the state is well-preserved. Obviously, when producers act according to what they are supposed to do, and rulers act according to what they suppose themselves to do, the governments and society are running like a machine, no flaws would cause. To make Plato’s theory brief, everyone in Plato’s constitution are bounded together tightly in a hierarchy. Individuals’ relations are like relations between blood and vex, or between bones and flesh. Without the laws and truth delivered by the wise ruling class, individuals’ life would be in a mess, while without the material produced by producers, the auxiliary and ruling guardians cannot survive physically.  

Mill’s theory on politics is mainly delivered in two books. However, this essay mainly concentrate on his On Liberty in which he argues for what individuality is and what government should be like so as to preserve individuality. According to Mill, government, though necessary to prevent individuals from threats caused by forces from other nation, is dangerous to individuality and freedom. People should be wary of the threats from government by introducing freedom of speech to supervised their government and making law to govern the government—only in the case that individual freedom interfere with freedom of others, should the government impose sanction on individuals. Thus, in contrast with Plato’s theory, Mill does not assume that the rulers are wise and benevolent, instead, rulers are corruptible and not that wise as Plato’s rulers are, making it necessary for every ordinary people to provide their opinions and truth about how a good government should run and to prevent them from corruption. 

In my point of view, differences and even contrasts between Plato’s and Mill’s theory lies in the difference and even contrast between their point of view on the conception of a good life and between their views about the relations between ethics and politics. 

Plato’s assumes that individual’s good life lies in the proper order of the three parts of an individual: reason, spirit, and passion—reason governs spirit and passion. Thus individuals should live a virtuous life. What kind of community is beneficial for individuals to live a virtue life? A state in which three classes are hierarchically ordered, Plato’s answers. For Plato, a well-order state emphasizing on togetherness and order provide individuals with healthy background culture and economic resource. Most importantly, Plato’s view of good life is unitary, and this view can be spot or captured by merely the ruling class or Plato himself. In addition, his view of a good life, ethics, links tightly to his politics: a good regime is to maintain a unitary view of life. This aspect of his theory might be reflected in his efforts to define a just person in term of the definition of a just regime. 

In contrast, Mill’s good life lies largely in individuality and autonomy. His emphasizes on individuality depends on at least three arguments. Firstly, every person is the best judge of their own interests and their view of life, rather than the wise or the rulers, so the government should provide individual with enough freedom to make decisions. Even assuming individuals might makes mistakes on their judgment on their interests, the value of the decision lies on the fact that the decision is made by himself. What’s more, every individual’s view of good life is not made once for all by himself, but changes as time goes by. Last but not least, the society are full of people holding a variety of view of good life, we could not figure out a unitary conception of good life and impose it on individuals. Thus, a legitimate government should protect individuals’ autonomy and individuality.

  

Thus, the differences between both theories are sharp. The only feature they share seem to be the linkage between politics and ethics. However, just as what has been mentioned previously, while the former provides a compressive and unitary ethics, and argues that politics should protect or impose this view of good life, the latter did not provide a single conception of good life and require government to impose it, instead, what the government should do is to provide a background environment for individuals to develop and revise their view of good life. 

My definition of a good life and political visions overlaps largely with liberalism. That is, Mill’s and Rawls’s theory. Since my middle school period, I began to make decision on my own. All of my important choices including my choice of university and majors and my choice of what to be in the future are made on my. Luckily, my family provides me sufficient freedom to do that. I highly agree with Rawls arguments for autonomy that everyone has their ability to form, to revise, and rationally pursue their conception of the good. As far as I am concerned, family, institutions, religious groups, and government should provide enough freedom for individuals to realize themselves in their own way. 

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。