FREE ESSAY ON THE POLITICS-BOOK 3

THE POLITICS-BOOK 3

" The many of whom none is individually an excellent man, nevertheless can when joined
together be better-not as individuals but all together-than those [who are the best],
just as
dinners contributed [by many] can be better than those equipped from a single
expenditure." (Page 101)
When it came to ruling the city, Plato believed that the best ruler would be the
philosopher. That person who know what would be best for the citizens and the city as a
whole. He did not trust the masses. He did not think they were capable of deciding what
was best for themselves. Aristotle does not agree with Plato on this subject. He
believes
that when it comes to judging what is best for the city, it is better for many to decide
than
few. 
Plato believed the person that makes the decisions for the city should be educated
on that matter. He believed that educating many people was impossible so in order for a
city to be good, the most educated persons, such as philosophers, should rule the city. 
Aristotle believes that even if the masses cannot be educated or virtuous decisions made
by many would be moderate. He believed that by having many people, it would rule out
bad decisions. It is more likely for the many to be virtuous than the many to be beasts.

He believes that is easier for a few to become corrupted than many. With only a few
ruling, they could make bad decisions because something like anger or some other
passion. It is hard for the many to experience this all at one time. 
Plato believes that the person ruling should be well educated. This person would
make the best decisions for the city. What happens if the many want something that isn't
best for the city? This is one of the greatest dangers in democracy. What if the many
are
to blinded by self-interest as individuals to realize that what they want isn't best for
the
city? In the US, few of us are well educated on music, but many of us judge it. I
believe
that sometimes that is the risk you have to take in a democracy. It is better to have
many
involved in judging than a few. People are going to want to decide what is best for
themselves. It is human nature. In both Plato and Aristotle's cities, the citizens are
educated to be virtuous. Their cities are built around the idea that the citizens are
harmonious and educated. I believe that they should be given a voice. They should be
trusted to decide what is best. I agree with Aristotle on the idea that many will produce
a
moderate decision. A city is based around the citizens. The type of place they live in is
up
to them, not to some higher authority. A city is not a city without citizens. If they
want
something that is not good for the city, than it should be their decision. They will
deal
with the problem when it arises. They will be must happier dealing with decision that is
made by the majority of them instead of one person who is making the decisions