“Another problem with people who fail to examine themselves is that they often prove all too easily influenced...” Martha C. Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2010).

Through this quote, Martha C. Nussbaum points out that people who are unscrupulous or outright fail to examine themselves are prone to being easily influenced by moving rhetoric that covers up bad arguments, which end up being unexamined. I agree with Nussbaum’s view because we, as humanity, have collectively seen this happen over and over again throughout history. I would like to clarify, defend, and show the implications of her view. In this essay, I will show the difference between rhetoric and an argument, shed light on Plato’s vision of a society and its governance, and elucidate Socrates’ view when he said, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. Then, I will show that the ignorance of people can put them at a disadvantage and become mere cogs in a machine running for someone else’s purpose. I am defining the word “ignorant” to be related to failing to or showing unscrupulousness in examining the arguments underlying moving and successful rhetoric. I will discuss how the Athenians even fell victim to the demagogue in the first place by looking at the Law of Identity and the fallacy of substitution of concepts. Finally, I will show that these ignorant people (Athenians, in this case) have a moral culpability if the demagogue were to become a ruler and conduct immoral acts.

While an argument is based on logic and method, inferring from the agreed-upon premises and moving towards the conclusion. An argument is true if its conclusion follows from the set premises and sounds only and only if the premises are true. There can indeed be false arguments, but unlike rhetoric, they are not designed to drive home a certain point by any means. An argument is meant to be a way for both entities involved (in Socratic dialogues, Socrates himself and the interlocutor) to reach the truth, and one should not be disappointed when unable to find a counter-argument at some point during the dialogue but be content and thankful to the other person. One should then discard their incorrect beliefs and keep only the ones which can be backed with arguments. Simply put, rhetoric is made to deceive, whereas arguments are meant to reach truth.

Socrates’ disciple, Plato, put forth his own ideas (inspired by the Socratic way of thinking) in his various books or dialogues. The Republic shows us an ideal society as Plato envisioned it. It mentions two key ideas in relation to this quote that I would like to bring up:

1. Philosopher King: The ruler of the ideal society should be a Philosopher, as they have spent their life perfecting themselves, gaining access to the world of forms, and are incorruptible, amongst other reasons.
2. The schools of the time: The schools are incapable of producing great rulers as they focus on professions such as that of a lawyer, which does not require the child to think critically but rhetorically.

Most people today would disregard the idea of a (1) Philosopher King when taken at face value. I intend to show Plato’s reasoning, as I perceive it, behind this concept. A philosopher reasons with arguments which, if not sound, can be detected to not be so. A philosopher would be the ideal man (or any other gender) to rule the society as he would be the one closest to attaining true virtuousness. He would not have schemes such as that of the demagogue to radicalise and attract the people towards his aim through rhetoric. Considering this as the background to Plato’s idea informs us of what Plato would not like to see in an ideal society. It is the radicalisation of the masses, often based on misrepresented information, to gain support for the demagogue becoming the ruler. (2) also prompts us to realise that the formative years of childhood are the most important when critical thinking and analytical skills can be developed, which keeps the person safe from bad arguments and schemes later in life. This would be an important part of the solution to this problem.

Socrates’ famous quote, “An unexamined life is not worth living”, can be applied not just to the life of an individual but also to the part the society plays in it. If one lived in a society which had a poor quality of life and a regressive thought process (that became the basis for its ruling strategies, the justice system, and all other factors of society), it would be a mistake not to examine that and be content in one’s little bubble. Simply put, society affects an individual’s life, and it is not possible to completely examine only an individual life without its influences. Applying this thought here provides us with an insight that if the Athenians choose the demagogue as their ruler and let themselves be used to the ends of the demagogue and let him shape their society without any examination of his claims, then the Athenian life is not worth living. They are only making themselves and other members of the society more closed-minded and prone to whatever (mostly negative) decisions that their ruler now makes without showcasing any resistance. Now that I have analysed the difference between an argument and rhetoric and the views of Socrates and Plato, I will move on to discussing why the Athenians would get swayed by the demagogue in the first place and then the ethical side of this issue starting with the Kantian deontological analysis of the demagogue’s actions and then the Consequentialist approach namely that of Utilitarianism.

Why would the Athenians get swayed by the demagogue in the first place? Leibniz’s Law of Identity tells us that for two things to be identical, they must share all the same properties. For A and B to comply with this law:

1. B must have all the properties of A.
2. A must have all the properties of B.

This is pretty basic, and no one doubts the validity of Leibniz’s Law of Identity; what is often disputed is its application.

Consider this for a moment: the ideal ruler’s characteristics (mindset, ruling practices or ideologies) that one specific Athenian wishes for can be represented by A; similarly, the characteristics of the demagogue can be represented by B. It follows that for this specific Athenian to approve of the demagogue as the ruler, the demagogue would have to convince the Athenian that the characteristics perceived as ideal for a ruler (A) and the characteristics of the demagogue (B) are identical. The demagogue who is well-versed in The Art of Rhetoric (as Plato titled his book) can manipulate the Athenians. He tricks the Athenians into believing that B seems to possess the properties of A, and the rest of B’s properties are ignored. The Leibniz law of Identity tells us that A and B are not equal; B has a scheming mindset from the start and could have very selfish goals for becoming the ruler, and A is the ruler as the people wish for him to be. Let B* be the perception of B, the demagogue which people hold because of his rhetoric manipulation. B* = A. The Athenians commit a substitution of concepts fallacy where they evaluate B* to be the ideal ruler, but because of his association with B, the people would choose the demagogue as their ruler, whereas they want a ruler who is drastically different from the demagogue. This might get you to think that I have a very negative view of the demagogue. Still, it should be remembered that the word demagogue, in its later Greek context, used to refer to people who wanted to gain power and radicalise people by even spreading false information and promises of immediate action, sometimes causing riots. Therefore, this outlook from this essay applies to such specific instances of the word. I support this false identity perception theory behind the public support for the demagogue. I would also like to point out that it is not a justified, rational step to consider the perception of someone or something to be a property of the thing as it is dependent on the observer or, as in this case, a fake persona shown put forth through the rhetoric. This result is pretty similar to the one obtained through the Masked Man Fallacy, which occurs when you consider your perception as a property of an object. It is interesting how we arrive at a similar conclusion, although the Masked Man Fallacy example is different in the sense that here, the perceived persona is another object (B*) outright, whereas, in the Masked Man Fallacy example, it is a property of the same object. The solution is similar too: do not consider your perception of someone to be their property. Your perceived individual is not the same as the individual itself, especially if they are manipulating you in some way.

Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative tells us that an act of using any other person (who is a human and, thus, a rational agent in himself who deserves to be treated as an end) as a mere means to your ends is immoral. It can be seen that the Athenians get used up as means (and not ends in themselves) to the ends of the talented demagogue. Not just this, I would also argue that the Athenians are used as mere means in this case as they are unaware of the fact that what they are being told is baseless rhetoric. Without examination, an Athenian would be mistaken to think that the claims and conclusions that the demagogue reaches are based on fact and obtained by true research and reasoning. Humans tend to err on the side, favouring their truth. Any scientific paper suggesting a radical conclusion is not completely discarded but reviewed thoroughly. If this review or examination is not conducted, who is to say if the arguments are sound or not? I would argue that the maxim of the demagogue is not known to the Athenians, and therefore, the utilisation of Athenians as mere means by the support of their votes to the demagogue’s end, which is becoming the democratic ruler is immoral, at least by Kant’s views.

An opposing view could say:

• P1: The Athenians could discern if what the demagogue stated was actually based in reason by questioning him (in a way similar to the Socratic method) and understanding his ideologies.
• P2: They failed to examine the bad arguments behind the rhetoric.
• C1: They let it happen to themselves. (modus ponendo ponens)
• C2: What the demagogue did is not immoral.

I would consider this argument but argue that the conclusion as a result of it is not correct, and thus, this counter-argument is not sound. In my view, someone’s lack of defence or examination of an immoral act towards them does not absolve the moral culpability of the one doing the immoral act. For example, a father cruelly beats his child, who had an opportunity to run away from home but did not muster up the courage to do so. It should not be that the immoral act of the parent is justified as the child let it happen to themselves. The parent shall still hold the moral culpability for his wrongdoings.

Does it even matter if they are not aware? If the Athenians are not aware of the reality of bad arguments behind the demagogue’s rhetoric and say, if the demagogue (now a ruler) does not engage in any bad/unjust practices for a certain period of time. Looking from a consequentialist point of view, nothing bad has happened, or nothing immoral has happened, as long as the same (or increasing) rate of progress is kept up by society. I believe that such a demagogue can, in certain cases, put the rights of the minorities in danger. Consider an example: to leave a radical impression on the Athenians, the demagogue enrages them against a specific group of people, making up all kinds of stories and telling rhetoric on why they are bad/undeserving of life. If given power, the demagogue might declare an attack on those people. According to Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism, the little enjoyment/happiness that is provided to the large number of people living in Athens compared to the death of a few citizens of the specific group is valid. Are the scales not in favour of the demagogue having done a morally right thing, a thing which provided the “greatest happiness to the greatest number”? It is, but a lot of people would argue that this is not morally right. I am one of them. I would argue that taking a totally Utilitarianism view produces a lot of questionable implications (reductio ad absurdum). I thus claim that the Deontological view is better suited to analyse this specific scenario and that the demagogue holds moral culpability. But does he hold all of it? Were the other Athenians, in a way, responsible when the demagogue decided to launch a radicalisation effort by killing those few individuals?

We might say that the Athenians were subject to propaganda (especially after the demagogue had become the ruler) which clouded their judgment. My view is that the Athenians should have examined the demagogue’s claims. Did they have a moral responsibility to do so? In the case if only they were harmed (for example, a lesser quality of life), no. But when there is the possibility that the demagogue might harm others who have not agreed to vote for him after being subject to the rhetoric, yes. Simply put, I believe that if one is (here, the majority) unscrupulous in examining the propagandistic messages of a political leader because of which, the demagogue becomes the ruler and kills some people (the minority who were against his propaganda), then, the one who fails to examine this has a moral culpability in the crime. Even more so because they were unscrupulous in practising what makes them human, their human reason. They gave into ignorance, and that cost the lives of the innocent.

A talented demagogue who knows their way with rhetoric is not far from gaining and being able to mobilise mass support if he finds people who fail to examine the soundness of the arguments underlying the rhetoric. With this background, it is possible to see where Plato is coming from when he argues for a Philosopher King. Socrates’ claim that an unexamined life (including your societal influences) is not worth living sheds light on society’s workings and how, if you blindly follow rhetoric like the Athenians, you will be used as a mere means to meet the ends of the demagogue. This also shows how the demagogue is morally culpable in the view of Kantian Deontological ethics. In my belief, Consequentialism would not be the ideal way to morally judge this situation as it leads to absurd implications, which not many would be in favour of. I also show how the other (than the minority) Athenians would hold moral culpability in the scenario where their ignorance causes harm to others (for example, the minority). This investigation shows that Democracy is vulnerable to those who are ready to manipulate the masses and gain support for themselves by radicalising the citizens- often by spreading hate. The solution to this problem, however, starts in childhood with good training in critical thinking and a curriculum designed around it.

Last Updated: 12 May, 2024