Furthermore it is fitting for a
king, or rather it is an absolute necessity for him, to arbitrate justice as
between subjects so that no one may have more or less than his just deserts,
but may receive honor or punishment as he deserves.
But how would anyone who was not
just ever be able to manage this? And how would anyone ever be just if he did
not understand the nature of justice?
Here again is a reason the king
should study philosophy, for without such study it would not be plain that he
knew justice and the just. For one cannot deny either that the one who has
learned it will understand justice better than the one who has not learned it,
or that all who have not studied philosophy are ignorant of its nature.
How
could I possibly do it when I don’t even understand it? How could I possibly
enforce it when I can’t even practice it for myself?
I have
had the opportunity to follow some truly fine leaders, but you will not find
them among the usual suspects. Instead of putting on a show, they are concerned
with making sure that everyone is treated fairly, and they will go well out of
their way to see that this happens. In this they are quite different than the
wheelers and dealers, who are interested in utility instead of justice.
In the
simplest of terms, the difference is between those who will give to other
people what is rightly their due, and those who will give to other people only
when they receive something else in return. One acts for the sake of his
fellows, while the other acts for the sake of his own profit. We see
righteousness in this corner, and a business transaction in that corner.
Whether
it be in the hallowed halls of government or the cubicles of the office
workers, only philosophy can inform those who are in a place of authority. This
seems quite ridiculous to the bureaucrat, because he assumes that philosophy is
far too theoretical, and management needs to be ever so practical. Yet philosophy,
as the very measure of right and wrong, is itself necessary for all human
practices, however mundane.
Do not
tell me you are a good leader if you do not know what it means to be good, or
that you treat people well when you cannot express what it means to live well.
If
justice is “whatever works”, then this requires an awareness of what one is
working toward. Where is the benefit? What aspects of a man should be improved?
Will it be helpful for all, or only for some? Look behind any conflict in
politics, or law, or business, and you will find that a confusion about these
questions is at the root of the problem.
Some
people claim that no one can ever be selfless, that everyone has a personal
agenda. What this fails to recognize is that human judgment is quite capable of
rising above mere desire, that some do indeed look to the whole instead of only
the part, and that cooperation is as much of an option as conflict.
Beyond
the “me” and the “you”, there could always be an “us”. Behind my good and your
good, there is a shared good. The
philosopher understands this, because he knows that justice is always of mutual
benefit, based upon merit and not upon privilege, and can only be practiced
when it respects all human dignity without preference.
Even if
you say that you can’t possibly do this, though I do wonder what is holding you
back, do not assume that others are incapable of what you have rejected. The
philosopher will still try to treat you well, even when you treat him poorly.
The true
king, whatever sort of crown he wears, is a servant and not a tyrant. He will
only bring peace instead of war as long as he remains a philosopher.
Written in 9/1999
No comments:
Post a Comment