The Ideal City

Richard Bielawa
Political Philosophy

My goal in this paper is to develop a solid political philosophy. Aristotle describes

politics as The science of the good of man (Aristotle PMP 173). When Aristotle said this he is
talking about what is good for society at large. In order to determine what is good, a moral
theory is necessary to be the foundation of any good political philosophy. Political philosophy
seems to be about how to best implement a strong moral theory. In other words, all political
philosophies seem to be guiding people how they ought to live based on an underlying moral
theory.
I find the best moral theory to be natural law theory. Natural law theory is a view
proposed by Aristotle. It seems to be the view of morality that has dominated much of western
moral thought throughout history. It is seen in our laws, religions, and many legal systems
around the world. I believe natural law theory is the view underlying Platos ideal city. Since
political philosophy is the proper implementation of a moral theory, I will show Platos ideal city
has implemented this moral theory. Platos ideal city, however, does not implement natural law
as well as it could be implemented. Instead, Ciceros city is a better implementation of natural
law theory
I will begin this paper by explaining natural law theory. I will explain it from Aristotles
Nicomachean Ethics and David Oderbergs Moral Theory. I then will explain Platos ideal city
as it is described in Book Four of Platos Republic. I will show how natural law theory is the
moral theory underlying Platos ideal city. I will then use Ciceros On the Republic to show how

Platos political philosophy is flawed, and how this flaw is partially incongruent with natural law
theory. I will then put forward Ciceros solution to this flaw which makes for a political
philosophy that is compatible with natural law theory.
Before we can display a good moral theory, we must determine who can be held morally
responsible. This must be done because political arrangements can only govern morally
responsible actors. In Oderbergs Moral Theory he argues that we have free will and
intentionality, and this is the criterion for moral responsibility. I do not have room in this paper
to dispel determinism, but I believe a brief example will suffice. There is a cookie on the table in
front of me. If I was not free in my decisions, I would have no control over whether I eat this
cookie or not. Since I have free will, I can weigh out the positives and negatives of that action
and come to a free decision as to if I want to consume that cookie or not.
Oderberg explains what is necessary for a being to have free will. The freedom that
entails responsibility...contains two essential components: knowledge and voluntariness
(Oderberg 30). This claim seems intuitively correct. I will explain with two short examples. Its
a foggy morning and Im hunting in the woods. I see what I believe to be a deer and take a shot.
As I approach what I believed to be a deer, I realize it was not a deer at all, but a person. It seems
strange to hold me as culpable for my actions as someone would a cold-blooded killer. It seems
strange to hold me as responsible because I did not have knowledge of what my actions were
truly doing. The second aspect of responsibility is voluntariness. Imagine I have been heavily
drugged by Barry Manilow, being the evil man he is, he forces me to murder Barbra Streisand
while sedated. It would be odd to hold me responsible because my actions were not voluntary. If
a person can be held morally responsible, their actions can be said to be good or bad. Now that

we understand that humans can be held morally responsible, we can examine what makes for a
good act.
Oderberg argues there are three parts to a human act: the act, actors intention, and
circumstances. All three must be good in order to call the whole act good. The act itself is good,
when the actor uses her natural powers in her natural way. The intention is good, if the actor
intended to use her natural power in her natural way. The circumstances are good when they are
such that they allow the actor to use their natural power in natural way. I will exemplify this with
communication. The purpose of communication is to communicate ones mind. The act is good
if the person: did indeed communicate their mind, the person intended to communicate their
mind, and the circumstances allowed for this. The act would become bad if they person lied,
because they did not use communication towards its natural end of communicating ones mind.
We see what makes for a good human act, but why is using natural powers towards natural ends
a good thing?
The best reasoning for why using natural powers in natural ways is good comes from
Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics. For all things that have a function or activity, the good and the
well is thought to reside in the function, so it would seem to be for man, if he has a function
(Aristotle PMP 176). I will exemplify this with a knife and a dog. I have a knife; I call this knife
a good knife when it does its cutting functions well. If the knife is sharp and makes fast precise
cuts, then it is operating well and I call it a good knife. My dogs name is Piccolo. Piccolo seems
to be happiest when he is using his functions properly. The function of a dog can be seen as
being a companion. Piccolo is very happy when he is accompanying me on walks, being petted,
etc. Since he is a golden retriever, he cannot be seen with anymore bounce in his step than when
he is fetching things I throw. When he does these things he is being a good dog, and he is also

happy. Now that we see how something using its characteristic function makes for a good and
happy being, we need to see what mans function is.
To see what mans function is we must find what sets man apart from other beings. Let
usexclude the life of nutrition and growth. Next, there would be the life of perception, but it
also seems to be shared by the horse, ox and every animal. There remains then, an active life of
the element that has a rational principle (Aristotle PMP 176). This quote is saying the life of
nutrition and growth is not humanitys primary function because it is shared by all living things.
It isnt the life of pursuing pleasurable goods because this is shared by all animals. This leaves it
so humanitys primary function is rational powers. Since humanitys primary function is reason,
for a man to be called good or well she must use the rational power over the lesser powers.
To use the rational power primarily means to not sacrifice it by choosing one of the lower
powers over it. This is called the hierarchy of goods. The hierarchy of good holds that the highest
good is preferred over the lower goods. This logically follows from that fact that using a beings
characteristic function is what makes them good and happy. I will exemplify choosing higher
over lower goods with cheesecake. After dinner, I am frequently faced with the decision of
eating desert or not. I would enjoy a piece of cheesecake, but consuming it would be choosing a
lower power over a higher power. If I ate the cheesecake, I would be choosing the power to
pursue pleasure over reason which dictates me to be healthy. This may bring short-term
satisfaction, but not true happiness because I am not using my characteristic function. Now that it
is seen how to make humanity happy, we can see how Platos ideal city is an implementation of
this and how it fails.

Platos Ideal city mainly tries to make men happy by having people in their proper places.
Platos Ideal city makes people analogous of the different functions of humanity. The hierarchy
of goods applies to Platos ideal city. He sees three major functions of humanity: rational,
spirited, and those who pursue pleasure. In the following paragraphs I will explain each part and
how they relate to his ideal city.
The rational power is found in the prudent class called the guardians. This group of
people is to determine how to regulate the city. This group of people is also the smallest group in
the city, though they have the most power. Plato uses the phrase stronger than himself (Plato
PMP pg. 73 line 431A 14) to make the analogy of the individual to the city. He implies that
when someone uses the phrase stronger they are saying the better principle in the person is
winning out over the weaker ones. These numerous weaker principles in an individual are like
the numerous weaker people in the city (Hoi Polloi). The less prominent, yet better principles
that make a city a good city are like the guardians. This is so, because the guardians must work
against the numerous bad principles in order to make a society better. When these greater
principles win out over the lesser principles in an individual, he is said to be a good person. This
is the same for a city. These principles may be good that the guardians develop, however, they
are meaningless without enforcement. Just as deliberation in the self is meaningless without
proper action, the guardians legislation is meaningless without someone to enforce it.
The people who enforce the legislation of the guardians are the spirited class of people,
the auxiliaries. The spirited class is lower than the rational class. This means the auxiliaries are
subject to the rule of the guardians. The spirited class can also be made analogous of the spirited
principle of the human soul. The spirited principle in man makes use of anger to endure through
hardships. This spirited principle, however, can side with reason and enact the principles that

reason has legislated ( Plato PMP pg.80 line 440b), and that is when it is acting properly. This
then leads me to believe that the spirited principle is what fights the desires to be a coward in
order to do what reason dictates. This can now be made analogous of the auxiliaries in the city
whom have this spirited principle. The auxiliaries duty is safekeeping of the opinion created by
law ( Plato PMP 72 line 429c 11). This is the auxiliaries job because they have the power to
resist the desires that stop many from enacting the principles that have been legislated as right,
this power is called courage. The guardians make these principles, and the auxiliaries enforce
these principles. If the guardians dont need enforcement of principles because they believe it to
be right, and the auxiliaries by their main natural power of spirit follow what the guardians
legislate, why is there a need for enforcement? The answer is the hoi polloi
The hoi polloi means the common many. In Platos analogy the common many are the
artisans or the money making class. This class simply pursues pleasure without restraint. This
classes desire to simply pursue pleasure is called an appetitive nature .The appetitive nature of
the artisans is naturally analogous of the appetitive part of the soul. Plato says this aspect of the
soul is the largest and most insatiable ( Plato PMP pg. 82 lines 442A 12-13). This aspect
represented in humanity is too the largest. This is viewed as the worst of the three powers. It can
be deducted as the worst because the other two classes have the job of ruling over this lesser
class. In a previous analogy used about opposing desires, the desires of this class are the lesser
desires that are overcame by the deliberation of the rational humans. The duty of the artisan class
is to provide money for the societies overall benefit, and to be restrained into moderation by the
laws. Plato would naturally think any legislation by this class would be an injustice for that
would be analogous of a lesser desire winning out over a better principle.

Seeing how Platos ideal city is an implementation of natural law theory is necessary. It is
necessary because without it there is no reason to believe Platos structure is a good one. The aim
of Platos ideal city is to make those subject to its structure happy. . Happiness as a city does not
come from making one group particularly happy, but from doing what is best for the whole
(Plato PMP pg.70, Lines 420b 7-10). From natural law theory we can see what makes men happy
in two ways.
The first way natural law theory makes men happy is by placing reason as its primary
good. Platos ideal city clearly does the same thing. Platos Ideal city places the guardians as its
most important feature. The guardians are seen as the people that are able to steer the city in its
proper direction. The guardians make all the legislation that tells the lower classes of people how
they ought to live. The guardians being the most important element of the ideal city, is like
reason being the most important element in natural law theory. Platos Ideal city is also like
natural law theory because it transforms the hierarchy of goods into a political structure
The hierarchy of goods holds that a higher power should never be ignored for the use of a
lower power. Platos Ideal city is very much like natural law theory in this regard. The guardians
are the ones Plato sees as fit for governing, he thinks it would be terrible to have the lesser
people ruling the government. In book eight of the republic, Plato describes the downfall of his
ideal society. He holds that a city ran by the auxiliaries is worse than a city ran by the guardians.
He sees the worst form of government as one ran by the hoi polloi, which would be a democracy.
Platos view of having lower classes running things is very much like the hierarchy of goods.
Just as in natural law if a lower power like pleasure is chosen over reason it is seen as bad, in
Platos theory when the lower classes of people whom represent lower powers run the city it is
seen as bad as well. Although looking at Platos ideal city as an implementation of natural law

makes for a justified political philosophy, Platos ideal city still is flawed and can become
improved.
The reasons why Platos Ideal city is flawed can be seen in Ciceros On the Republic.
Ciceros On the Republic is directly in response to Platos Republic. In it, Cicero describes the
flaws of Platos ideal city. Ciceros problems with Platos ideal city come mainly from the
stability of it. When the problem Cicero puts forward is examined from a natural law
perspective it provides answers as to why Platos ideal city is unstable.
Cicero views Platos ideal city as unbalanced because of how it treats the hoi polloi. In
aristocracies the masses can hardly have their share of liberty, since they are entirely excluded
from deliberation for the common weal and from power (Cicero PMP 276). Cicero sees
disrespect for the peoples liberty as the reason Platos ideal city failed. Examples of this are
very common throughout history. The French Revolution happened because the people were fed
up with a lack of liberty. The same with the American Revolution. Platos ideal city treats the
people too much like the lower powers and ignores their individual reason and free will. This
causes the people to revolt against the aristocracy and form a democracy.
Now that we see that Platos ideal city ignores the reason and freewill of the lower
classes. We need justification as to why this causes people to be upset. Why is liberty important?
Why is having a voice in legislation important? The questions can be answered via natural law
theory. If we remember to the beginning of this paper, the elements that make an act human are
knowledge and voluntariness. We should also remember the function of humanity that is most
important in making men happy, reason. In Platos ideal city the people are robbed of their
voluntariness. The majority of people are forced to do things not because they will it, but because

it is willed by the guardians. Taking this away from people makes them not fully human. Platos
city made the people too analogous of the lower powers. The lower powers do not have
voluntariness they are less than human, but the people that represent the lower powers do
actually have voluntariness. Platos ideal city does not take this into account which is one reason
why it becomes unstable. Similarly, it ignores the peoples reason. Platos ideal city treats the
people as if they are beasts driven purely by desire who cannot reason for themselves. Since
proper use of reason, in natural law theory, is what makes men happy, a city that wants to be
happy as a whole should provide the people with the ability to use their own reason, instead of
restricting it. Many philosophers have shown that problems arise reason is disrespected, such as
Karl Marx in Estranged Labor. Cicero provides a new form of government that solves the
problems that Platos ideal city causes.
Even though Cicero finds it important that peoples freewill and reason is preserved in a
good political philosophy, he does not see democracy as the ideal solution. He is against
democracy because it too is unbalanced, just as an aristocracy is. It is unbalanced because the hoi
polloi often choose a path of vice that leads to destruction. This view too is consistent with
natural law theory. Natural law theory views it as bad to choose a lower power over a higher
power. The hoi polloi commonly do this, which was Platos concern. The task then is to find a
city that guides the people in a virtuous direction, while not robbing the people of their liberty. If
this can be found it would truly be a strong balanced city. Cicero provides us with a structure that
fulfills this criterion.
Cicero provides a way to find a balanced city that guides the people on a correct path.
His solution is a representative republic. A representative republic is the current form of
government which we have in the United States. Our forefathers, who formed our American

government, talk about the importance and implementation of a representative republic in the
Federalist Papers. Cicero describes a representative republic as a moderate and balanced form
of government which is a combination of the three good simple forms is preferable(Cicero PMP
280). To understand this, the three simple forms must be understood. The first simple form is a
kingship. The second simple form is an aristocracy. The third simple form is a democracy.
Cicero aims to combine these to find a balanced, strong form of government.
When the three simple forms are combined, they form the representative republic. The
first simple form is the kingship, which is represented in the presidency. It is important to have a
president to have an efficient government. The second simple form of government is the
aristocracy, which is represented in congress via the Senate. Lastly, democracy, this is
represented in the peoples ability to vote people into office, and also in congress via the House
of Representatives. The ability to vote people into office whom represent them provides the
people with a way to have their liberty preserved and have what they have reasoned as right
represented in the legislation. This is entirely compatible with natural law theory.
Ciceros preferred form of government still keeps the hierarchy of goods in check. It does
so by not giving complete control to the people. The vices that the hoi polloi are influenced by
are kept in check by the aristocratic element of a representative republic, while not completely
robbing them of their liberty. It keeps the important element of voluntariness preserved by giving
the people some say in government. This also allows the people to use reason and deliberate
about their actions to determine what is right. The aristocratic element guides the decisions of the
people without commanding what ought to be done. The government remains pragmatic by
having a president. These three branches check and balance each other to make sure one branch
is not in possession of more control than any other.

Ciceros preferred form of government provides a stable form of government that is not
subject to being criticized as immoral by natural law theory. Since this form of government
allows for a hierarchy of goods to be implemented and preserves the reason and liberty of all the
individuals subjugated to its structure, it is definitely a great form of government. If we
remember to the beginning of the paper, the aim of political philosophy is to make men happy.
Natural law allows us to know what makes men happy, and the representative republic is the
most fitting implementation of this moral theory. Therefore, a representative republic is the
governmental structure that will secure the happiness of the people.

Works Cited
Cahn, Steven M. "Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics." Classics of Political and Moral
Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 173-80. Print.
Cahn, Steven M. "Cicero's On the Republic." Classics of Political and Moral
Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 274-80. Print.
Cahn, Steven M. "Plato's Republic." Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy.
New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 70-150. Print.
Oderberg, David S. Moral Theory: A Non-consequentialist Approach. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell, 2000. Print.