To Lead or Not to Lead: An Analysis of Cicero and Plato’s Philosopher-King

In Cicero’s De Officiis, Cicero is critical of Plato’s philosopher-kings, arguing that although they have an understanding of justice they fail in another aspect, “for impeded by their devotion to learning, they abandon those whom they ought to protect”(Cicero 33). In this essay, I will show why both authors were right about virtuousness as desirable in a leader, observe the strengths and weaknesses in Plato’s The Republic, and explain that when looking at both authors’ arguments, Cicero’s philosopher-king best serves the public. Cicero understood that a duty towards one’s moral obligations is compelling because it calls for patriotism in a moral society, going beyond Plato’s emphasis on education as a way of leading. Therefore, the focus of virtuousness for Plato lies in specific classes of people with specialized skills, but for Cicero, it lies in all citizens feeling a duty to the motherland.

Plato and Cicero would agree that philosopher-kings have a deep understanding of what makes up the virtuousness of the philosopher-king, however, differing in that Plato focuses on the leader’s character development while Cicero desires the leader to safeguard citizen’s safety and liberty. Both philosophers knew that the most important of virtues was wisdom. In Books 5 and 6 of The Republic, Socrates places paramount importance on the philosopher’s place in society. The philosopher understands the virtues of truth, beauty, and justice and that these are essential aspects needed for guarding the city. Ethics and politics are inseparable and philosopher kings have as their bedrock a deep love for justice in the city. Plato talks about it through Socrates’ voice, explaining that:

Unless the philosophers rule as kings or those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the city (Plato 336).

But, is philosophy the most important cornerstone of the city? Can philosophy and political power lie in the same place? Plato talks about having a specific class of people that would help create a just society. The guardians would have to concentrate their time studying philosophy and henceforth act like philosophers. Since, for Plato, a king is one who holds political greatness and the philosopher is the one who holds wisdom, this implies that political greatness and wisdom are the same. The philosopher-king is the one who has an inherently just nature in him, desiring the best for the entire city.

Cicero emphasizes the philosophical understanding of good public governance. He says in Book I that “although in philosophy there are many weighty and useful things discussed carefully and copiously by philosophers, the most widely accessible seem to be those concerning appropriate actions and the precepts derived from them” (Cicero 23). Both he and Plato are interested in what necessary actions or policies best improve the well-being of the city. Also, the importance that philosophy has on rulers is understanding why it is important to help others and what can be done to make people’s lives better. Therefore, to improve the lives of all people, the rulers have an understanding of virtue that narrows down to how justice should be interpreted in the city. However, the interpretation of what this justice entails diverges for Cicero and Plato.

For Plato, in Socrates’ voice, virtue is a quality that will allow people to perform at their zenith. This virtue is tied to justice and without it chaos and disharmony ensues. Thus, both authors believe justice to be a virtue that the philosopher-kings must hold. Cicero believed justice as protecting the common goods of society and the private good of individuals and Plato believed justice to be the right behavior of the human soul. What is interesting is that Plato says that “we must infer that all things are produced more plentifully and easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing which is natural to him, and does it at the right time, and leaves other things” (page 41). In this, Plato lays out what his ideal city is. Each citizen of this city should be given a specific duty that is based on their inherent skills. Plato desires a society that is efficient and specialized starting from education at birth.

Both philosophers wish to preserve moral excellence within the rulers and the city and to make them one and the same. Plato structured the city so that virtue was placed before all else and that the guardians would protect the goodness of the city. He says that “[the city] must select from the other guardians the sort of men who, upon our consideration, from everything in their lives, look as if they were entirely eager to do what they believe to be advantageous to the city” ( Plato 78). Thinking about the virtuousness of these guardians is important as it forms the group of people that are best suited to lead. This goodness is defined by Plato as “the finest wage of virtue [being] an eternal drunk”(34). The eternal drunk is interpreted as something physically engraved in them till they die and is something that is worth attaining. The philosophers will use the virtue they dedicated their whole lives to, along with the knowledge of goodness in order to help citizens reach this goal. Both Plato and Cicero share the same request for the philosopher-king to have a moral compass. Cicero understood the need for moral direction in a city so that society does not fall into moral decay. He pointed out that “a spirit well formed by nature wishes to obey no one except for his own utility — one who advises or who teaches or who rules justly and legitimately” (Cicero 27). As both thinkers lived in times of great political chaos within their cities, they understood the necessity of virtuousness in a group of people that would help mold and preserve the dignity and sanctity of the city. They knew that philosophers understood what could help prevent the decay of the city: the moral strengths of the philosopher can make him a better leader. Plato and Cicero believed that the one with wisdom is the one who has a clear vision of how important education and virtue are to the soul, both emphasizing the need for the philosopher-king to develop himself in moral fortitude and in leadership but through different institutional manners.

Plato defines his justice in the ideal city through the Kallipolis, a place where young talent is placed into a leadership circle for the rest of their lives. For Plato, the philosopher-king is brought up in the image of the ideal city through censorship of unnecessary material. Plato, through Socrates, says in Book II “we must supervise the makers of tales; and if they make a fine tale, it must be approved, but if it’s not, it must be rejected” (Plato 47). Censorship, it seems, is necessary to create a just city. These tales will determine the way that members of the Kallipolis will act as the tales are meant to change their behaviors in order to inculcate moral sensibilities in them. And it is in these tales according to Plato that philosopher-kings cultivate an understanding of justice for all. Because they are taught at an early age what to believe, this molds their character into something meant to embody the guardians. But the question is why does a ruler have to be intellectual, philosophical, or be censored by their mothers for that matter? Other traits seem more important, like that of charisma and the bonds between different leaders. Philosophical matters could be left to different advisors for the leader or king. Cicero knew what Plato’s intentions were in that a just nature of a ruler would bring a just society, but this has not been the case.

The citizens of Plato’s city do not have a choice in what they want to do, as either you are born to become a guardian or you are not depending on your aptitudes and nature. So, do philosopher-kings truly understand what the rest of the city desires? What if a citizen wishes to be a leader even if he is rejected because he does not have the philosophical fundamentals? Justice for Plato is based on natural skills and a social system that prioritizes maximizing purpose. The focus of virtuousness between the two authors becomes clear, being Plato’s pursuit of justice in the soul vis-à-vis Cicero’s pursuit of honorable duty in the man (which will be discussed later). Plato focuses on the rule of the soul through reason and that there is a higher truth that it should follow and strive toward. By focusing on the bettering of the soul, Plato brings to light the important role the philosopher-king plays as a leader. Going back to what Plato said about kings and chiefs being called to “genuinely and adequately philosophize”, this reminds us how Plato placed great importance on the soul and how the philosopher has to be qualified in character to combat evils within him and the city in order for it to survive. (Plato 143) Plato elevates the profession of the philosopher-king over those of other citizens. Although he says that this practice is what will bring out the just city, it demonstrates the self-centerdness and power-seeking character of the ruler. It is about creating a class of philosopher-kings that know that philosophy is at the center of their existence. In having this sense of justice in the soul in deciding who should rule the city along with the wisdom and lifetime of education, he must come to the conclusion that he must break his lifetime of learning to become the philosopher and the king: the philosopher-king.

With that being said, when we observe Cicero’s De Officiis, the philosopher-king becomes a leader through a sense of duty and obligation that become vital components of the service ethics of a statesman. It is a continuation of both the philosopher and the king but with a contractual love towards serving others selflessly. Cicero departs from Plato’s philosophy because for him ethics and service to the people are integral. Cicero says that “[the philosopher-king] can in no way be courageous if he judges pain the greatest ill, nor temperate if he holds pleasure the greatest good” (Cicero 23). This is an important point because a good man must follow the principles of justice, service, and follow the common interest of everyone. Not only because it is the right thing to do, but it brings honestas,integrity, to the entire commonwealth. Treat everyone as your equal for when it is your time to lead, you will understand the courage of upholding de officiias. Justice is not centered on the soul per se for Cicero, as Plato says that “[justice is] giving back to any man whatsoever something he has deposited when, of unsound mind, he demands it. And yet, what he deposited is surely owed to him” (Plato 5–6). But what if one’s work is in fact a form of meddling in someone’s lives as a form of seeking justice and honestas in the city? Cicero says there are two kinds of injustices: “the injustice of those who inflict injury; second, those who, although able, do not repel injury from those upon whom it is being inflicted” (Cicero 31). Plato’s understanding of justice is an injustice if the philosopher king allows harm to happen to a citizen who cannot trust his government to the right thing when chaos ensues. It should be the innate desire of the philosopher to be empathetic towards those he represents and to use his wisdom to help improve the quality of life in the city.

In Plato and Cicero’s arguments, we see how important reason and wisdom is to the human soul. Although we seek personal advantages, a good person will have in his mind the ethical duties bestowed upon him as a lawful and abiding citizen. The convergence between the two is that Plato focuses more on creating wise leaders who are compelled to rule for the common good thanks to their character, while Cicero says that fundamentally a leader should risk his life for the patria, creating leaders willing to die on the battlefield. Cicero says that “we ought to be more willing to place in danger our own interests than communal interests, and more ready to risk our honor and glory than other advantages” (Cicero 55). That being said, a leader should not only feel compelled to serve his people, but also take the initiative to bring his ethical duties to the people; to become selfless knowing he could very well die in his efforts towards helping the well-being of all. In this process, citizens can admire the values of de Officiias and hopefully reciprocate their virtues. Cicero elaborates more on what it means to serve towards the common good, saying that “human beings are born for the sake of other human beings, so as to benefit one another’’ (Cicero 30). This mutual reciprocity is at the heart of all things good and holy. To keep the sanctity of the city intact, leaders must define their duty to the people, a duty that does not seek self-aggrandiziment, but a duty that seeks protection of all. The preservation of life and liberty is thus better maintained under Cicero.

Cicero is able to make a virtuous leader into a statesman by placing forward the importance of unwanted self-glorification. Although both Plato and Cicero talk about the harms of self-advantage, it is the latter author that hopes to create the office or officiias as a pillar of true glory. Cicero understood that when men are led into positions of high power, they tend to be forgetful of justice and seek positions of command in the name of honor or glory. He notes “there is a kind of doubt when what seems to be useful seems to conflict with what is honorable; for when utility seems to seize us toward its aims, and, conversely, honorableness seems to recall us toward its own” (Cicero 27). Although glory might be confused with justice, justice cannot conflict with advantage. Justice that is properly understood in the context of the city will always be to one’s advantage as a person and in the process will help everyone in the city. For Plato, justice is observed in the structures of the human soul in comparison to the city. If every citizen practices his specialized occupation and does so without interfering in the lives of others that creates a just city. So Plato’s ideal city, with its philosopher-kings and guardians, should govern themselves to create the next line of warriors. The problem with Plato’s understanding of justice is that the philosopher-kings again are only educated in tales of moral sensibilities that does not represent the needs of the entire populace as they are not educated in this as well.

Philosopher-kings in Plato’s city are not the military leaders that Cicero desires as they are not courageous enough to risk their livelihoods towards some greater good that does not befall their self-centered nature. Censorship is not a requirement for Cicero as the understanding of personal advantage is discarded for the sake of a collective happiness that promotes a communitarian-esque love for everyone who seeks help. Plato argues that education is what makes the philosopher-king worthy to be guardian of the city, as they have been given a special education to make them ready to rule. Learning about philosophy, wisdom, and love are great assets in a leader and should be considered, but it should not be a defining aspect of a statesman. Plato says that the idea of good is at the root of what is right and fair “in the visible it gave birth to light and its sovereign; in the intelligible, itself sovereign, it provided truth and intelligence — and that the man who is going to act prudently in private or in public must see it” (Plato 169). While the philosopher-king might have natural qualities that are bestowed upon him through education and be treated as an intellectual, he spends too much time in the private then in public life. There is no worth in being educated about goodness if it does not instill a sense of duty towards the common good of humanity. Cicero critiques Plato by saying one must understand if what Plato said about philosophers is truly enough to promote liberty and security in the city because they are much more concerned with the investigation of truth and hatred and “think worthless those things that most people vehemently desire and fiercely struggle over, that they, the philosophers, are just ”(Cicero 32–3). Plato does not emphasize the need for civic duty within the philosopher-king as they are the ones who make the calls when it is time to react, thus, acting not merely on compulsion but on responsibility.

The leader cannot become a statesman if his role in it of itself means little to the people when he is constantly philosophizing. The philosopher must feel the drive or impulse to use his wisdom for the improvement of human excellency. The philosopher of Plato is interested more in the private life than the public life if the leader does not use his knowledge in the art of public affairs. The calling for the motherland and its moral obligation to it should come first and does come first in Cicero. Cicero on the other hand does not use censorship as a way to mold a virtuous leader but emphasizes responsibility and true glory, a desire for a greatness of spirit.

Work Cited:

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Benjamin Patrick Newton. On Duties. Cornell University Press, 2016.

Plato, et al. The Republic of Plato. Harper Collins/Basic Books, 2016.