Thank you Shunom Henry Kato for this monumental question.
Philosophy begins by asking questions, but the greatest value is not always found in the answers, but in the discovery of further important questions. In this case, we may ask, ‘Who should rule the world?’ And if we attempt to define who is rightfully ‘the ruler’ we must also define who is rightfully ‘the ruled’ – assuming such things exist at all. What does the concept of ‘ruling’ actually entail? We also have to define which ‘world’ we are talking about: yours, mine, or everyone’s?
There has long been a tension in Political Science between the altruistic ruler, who rules in the interests of the ruled, and the egoistic ruler, who rules in their own interests. This is perhaps most clearly identified in Plato’s Republic, which argues in favour of the former; and in Machiavelli’s The Prince, which supports the latter. This poses a further monumental question, if indeed someone has to rule: What qualifies someone to be the best ruler?
Our world is separated by different nations, with different political systems that each give different foundations for different types of leadership. Crudely speaking, we stand between democracy – the rule of the people – and dictatorship – the rule of one arbitrary person or group. A dictator can rule either in the interests of the people, like Plato’s famous Philosopher Kings and Queens; or to consolidate their own power, like Machiavelli’s Prince. Meanwhile, the looming worry with democratic nations is that they, like a ship without a captain, will inevitably lose their course.
Who are ‘the ruled’ then? Plato’s and Machiavelli’s definition of ideal rulers depend on two very different views of human nature and what humans are capable of. Are individuals capable of looking after themselves? Are we capable of looking after each other? Or is everyone in it for themselves? Are we all evil, and need to be kept in place by an iron fist? If people are not capable as individuals, then order – any order – is surely better than the chaos that would follow without having a strong (Machiavellian) leader. If that is the case, it can even be argued that such a leader is justified in ruling with an iron fist, as it is in the people’s interests and for their own good.
Whatever your thoughts on human nature, ask any dictator or mob on the street this: What gives you the right to rule over me? Ideally, we would all live by William Ernest Henley’s words: ‘I am the ruler of my fate. I am the captain of my soul.’ But for this to be true, we must each recognise the intrinsic value in ourselves and others as capable individuals with at least potentially unconquerable souls.
Who rules the world then? No one; if individuals are free to rule on their own. Therefore, we need a society where individuals’ freedoms are recognised, not infringed upon. How is that best secured? As answered by Cicero: simply by the rule of law. That is, not by the rule of this or that arbitrary person, but by a law that recognises this intrinsic fact about human nature and implements it accordingly. How that is best accomplished, however, is a whole other story.
Who do you think rules the world? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: Cicero Denounces Catiline, fresco by Cesare Maccari (1882-88)
I am an Associate Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of York. I did a BA in Philosophy and Divinity at the University of Aberdeen. During my MA, also at Aberdeen, I studied the history and foundation of quantum mechanics, and metaphysics and science in the 17th century. I completed my PhD at the University of York in 2018, with a focus on the epistemology, theology, and political philosophy of John Locke. I am also interested in ethics, the history and development of natural law theory, and Neo-Platonism in the 17th century. More recently, in the spirit of Neo-Platonism, I have started working on Damaris Masham and Anne Conway. This has led to a growing interest in other women in the history of philosophy that have often been ignored…