(
Inspired by several of Plato's texts, mainly Gorgias.)
The mentality of social darwinism that made the 20th century into a living hell for many worldwide, existed in ancient Greece as well. In Plato's essay "Gorgias", Callicles declares how he thinks laws and conventions are made for the weak, and how the stronger is being held back by them. The stronger who have resources to gain more, profit more and rule better than the laws allow, are cast under a spell that make them believe that equality and moderation is of good nature, which, according to Callicles, is not correct. I am sure that many share his opinion today, it s a problem that we still have-- I say problem because it has a lot of painful consequences for many. This is how good old Socrates handles it:
He questions Callicles' reasoning about the weak and the strong. If the weak are able to hold back the strong, does not that mean that the weak are actually stronger than the strong, at least together (a classic comment)?But who would be most suitable to rule a society? The good man. And who is the good man? The happy man. And who is the happy man? Not those who have more than others, but those who are capable of ruling themselves as well as ruling others. Crazy old man, Callicles thinks. What does Socrates mean? He means that we must restrain desires in order to be happy. Callicles protests and says that satisfying desires is what differs the strong from the weak, those who can satisfy their desires are stronger than those who can not. It is out of jealousy that the weak majority despise the strong and what is actually right-- which is that and doing whatever you have the resources to do and doing it because you can. This is when things become interesting. Is having desires a good or bad thing? To make things more simple, Callicles and Socrates agrees that pleasure is good, pain is bad. Is being thirsty a pleasure or pain? Is feeling the need of scratching yourself a pleasure or pain? It is painful, yes? It is not until your desires are satisfied that they become a pleasure. Drinking when you are thirsty is undeniably a pleasure. But scratching yourself when your body itches can become painful, if the itch does not go away and you scratch until you start to bleed.
This particular argument I find very interesting and adaptable in the discussion about who would be most suitable to rule a society. Because what causes the problems in our world? Doing things because you can without really asking yourself why you do it* (this is my opinion, I'm open for discussion). I'll admit that it does feel good to have money in my wallet, but why does it feel good? Because then I can use them to put other desires at ease. Now, to use my money to ease my hunger or thirst and hinder myself from falling ill, it is a good thing, yes? But having a lot of resources I might start eating more than I need or actually want, more than what is good for my well-being, and maybe I will start drinking things that does not actually slake my thirst at all but increase it, like wine, beer or some other alcoholic drink that makes you desire more and other things.
So satisfying desires whenever they show up for whatever they may be does not make you a happy man, even less of a good man. For satisfying some desires leads to more desires than you started out with. And what is the point with earning money to earn more money? And power, is not that too a desire? Is not that what Nietzsche says defines man kind- the everlasting want and need of power? How do you still that desire? By ruling. If one rules for the sake of slaking one's desire for power, that is doing something just because you can, and will only fuel more desires. Desiring things is painful. Pain is bad. Unless it is balanaced with its' opposite, which it can be if you know why you are doing what you are doing. So reasoning this way does make moderation a good thing, but does it do the same with equality? I think it must be considered from a different angle... No, this text does not fully answer the question in the title, but maybe it gives us a model with which we can test different characteristic's quality.
* Having more resources than you need means great responsability and thoughtfulness. Plato mentions, not only in 'the Republic' I should add, that a society with many luxuries is ill and feverish, for it is rich in things we do not need (even though I can not agree with what he defines with things we need and things we do not need). The duties that comes with being 'the people' in a democracy does not only include taking part in elections but also helping our governments to resist the temptations they undeniable stand before every day.
