Plato argues that, in a democracy, both good and bad pleasures are equal and therefore indulged equally. There is an “absence of compulsion to rule the city,” and it is considered the “fairest regime” (1). Because everyone in the democratic society is equal, “there [is] license in it to do whatever one wants” knowing their way is just as good as another’s (2). Normative and ethical evaluations do not come into consideration because no desire or interest is superior than another. The objective in a democratic society is to simply satisfy one’s desires, and as long as there is equality, citizens of the democracy will not make normative reflections. According to Plato, this system is ultimately incoherent.

I believe Plato’s argument is logical because democracy allows for all possible avenues of thought to be acceptable. However, when there is a code of law or norms in a society, the “free-for-all” desire indulgence is put in check. Plato demonstrates a democracy with ideological equality, but in today’s world, ethics are play a role in decision-making.

Tocqueville, on the other hand, argues that the intellect is restricted because citizens “become nearly the same…and not perceiving in anyone among themselves incontestable signs of greatness and superiority…each therefore withdraws narrowly into himself and claims to judge the world from there” (3). The lack of superiority exists within concepts, similar to how Plato described, where everything is considered equally, instead of having normative standards. In addition, because American democracy has never seen a revolution, people seek intellect on their own, undermining knowledge. This self-efficiency creates a situation where “men are no longer bound except by interests, not by ideas; and one could say that human opinions form no more than a sort of intellectual dust that is blow around on all sides and cannot gather and settle” (4). The disregard for ideas, due to the lack of superiority and absolute equality, predisposes democracies against normative analyses but also to a collapse under public opinion.

I disagree that democracy limits intellect, for part of the supposed benefits of democracy is the fact that it considers all intellectual ideas equally. I do, however, agree with Tocqueville’s focus on the individual and how, because no one sees another as superior, individuals will judge for themselves and have their own opinions and ideas.

Finally, Dr. Johnson argues that we “live in a culture in which bad faith tolerance-for-others is ubiquitous and rewarded, while productive intellectual sparring is shunned, and [we] regularly confuse ‘defending one’s position” with “imposing one’s position’”(5). In other words, people accept their own beliefs without having evidence, and they refuse to accept the arguments of others. While I agree with Dr. Johnson’s assertion of lazy relativism, I believe equality can promote platforms for discussion and intellect exchange. Sometimes, when there are vehement opponents, people set aside discussion of values to make decisions and progress.

(1) Plato, “Book VIII,” The Republic.

(2) Ebid.

(3) Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Winthrop (Mansfield: 2000), 404.

(4) Ebid., 406.

(5) Leigh M. Johnson, “Lazy Relativism,” ReadMoreWriteMoreThinkMoreBeMore (November 2009), http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html.