Plato, one of the most influential philosophers of ancient Greece, had a rather skeptical view of democracy. In his seminal work, The Republic, he articulated his concerns about the potential pitfalls of a democratic system. Unlike modern interpretations of democracy, which often emphasize freedom and equality, Plato saw democracy as a breeding ground for chaos and disorder. He argued that when the masses are given the power to make decisions, they may often act out of passion rather than reason, leading to what he termed mob rule.

One of Plato's primary critiques was that democracy could undermine the very values it seeks to uphold. He believed that the average citizen, lacking the necessary knowledge and wisdom, could make decisions that are detrimental to the state. In his view, the populace was often swayed by demagogues—charismatic leaders who could manipulate public opinion for their own gain. This reliance on emotional appeal rather than rational discourse could result in the election of leaders who are more concerned with their popularity than with the common good.

Plato's vision of governance diverged sharply from democratic ideals. He proposed the concept of the philosopher-king, a ruler who possesses both wisdom and virtue. According to Plato, only those who understand the true nature of justice and the good life are fit to govern. He believed that a philosopher-king would not be swayed by the whims of the masses but would instead make decisions based on knowledge and rationality. This idea reflects Plato’s deep-seated belief that governance should be in the hands of the intellectually capable, rather than the general populace.

To illustrate his point, Plato used the allegory of the Ship of State. In this metaphor, he likens the state to a ship, with the captain representing the philosopher-king. If the captain is knowledgeable about navigation and the seas, the ship will reach its destination safely. However, if the crew (the citizens) takes control without understanding the complexities of sailing, the ship is likely to run aground or be led astray. This allegory encapsulates Plato's argument that without proper guidance from those who truly understand governance, a democratic society risks sinking into disarray.

In conclusion, while Plato acknowledged the appeal of democracy as a system that gives power to the people, he remained deeply concerned about its practical implications. His critiques serve as a reminder of the delicate balance between freedom and responsibility in any democratic society. The challenge lies in ensuring that the voices of the citizens are informed and rational, rather than driven by fleeting emotions and populism.

• What is Plato's main critique of democracy? Plato argues that democracy can lead to mob rule and poor decision-making, as the average citizen may lack the necessary knowledge and wisdom.
• What does Plato propose as an alternative to democracy? He proposes the concept of the philosopher-king, a ruler who possesses wisdom and virtue, to ensure that governance is based on knowledge rather than popular opinion.
• How does Plato illustrate his critique of democracy? He uses the allegory of the Ship of State, where the captain represents a knowledgeable ruler and the crew symbolizes the uninformed citizens, highlighting the risks of allowing the masses to steer the ship.

The origins of democracy in Athens are often traced back to the political reforms of Cleisthenes around 508 BC. Cleisthenes, known as the "Father of Athenian Democracy," introduced a system that allowed citizens to participate directly in decision-making. This was a radical shift from previous oligarchic systems, where power was concentrated in the hands of a few. The establishment of the Assembly, where free male citizens could gather to discuss and vote on laws, marked a significant milestone in the evolution of democratic governance. This participatory model laid the groundwork for what we now consider a democratic society, emphasizing the importance of the collective voice of the people.

Ancient Greece was a hotbed of philosophical thought, with key figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle shaping the discourse on democracy. These philosophers examined the role of individuals in governance, civic responsibility, and the ethical dimensions of political participation. Their insights continue to resonate today, influencing modern democratic practices and the ongoing debate about the nature of citizenship and governance.

Socrates, one of the most influential philosophers of all time, emphasized the importance of virtue and ethics in democratic participation. He believed that for democracy to function effectively, citizens must be informed and moral. In his view, the ideal citizen is one who engages thoughtfully in public discourse, contributing not just opinions but reasoned arguments based on ethical considerations. Socrates famously stated, "An unexamined life is not worth living," underscoring the need for critical thinking and self-reflection in the democratic process. His method of questioning, known as the Socratic method, encourages individuals to think deeply about their beliefs and the implications of their choices, fostering a more engaged and responsible citizenry.

In his seminal work, The Republic, Plato offered a profound critique of democracy. He argued that while democracy allows for freedom and equality, it can also lead to chaos and the erosion of societal values. Plato feared that the majority might make decisions driven by emotion rather than reason, resulting in what he termed "mob rule." To counter this, he proposed the idea of a philosopher-king, a ruler who possesses both wisdom and virtue. This ruler would be guided by knowledge rather than popular opinion, ensuring that governance is rooted in the common good rather than fleeting desires. Plato's vision challenges us to consider the balance between freedom and responsibility in democratic systems.

The concept of the philosopher-king is central to Plato's vision of an ideal state. He believed that those who govern should be individuals who understand the complexities of justice and possess the knowledge necessary to lead wisely. In Plato's view, the philosopher-king is not merely a ruler but a guardian of the state, ensuring that decisions are made for the benefit of all rather than for personal gain. This notion raises important questions about the qualifications and responsibilities of leaders in a democracy. Should leaders be chosen based on their expertise and ethical grounding, or is popular vote sufficient to determine who should govern?

Aristotle provided a more pragmatic analysis of democracy in his work, Politics. Rather than outright condemnation or idealization, he examined various forms of government, including democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. Aristotle advocated for a balanced polity, one that incorporates elements from different governance styles to create a more stable and just society. He believed that a mixed government could mitigate the weaknesses of each system, promoting the common good while ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few. Aristotle's insights remind us that democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution but rather a complex interplay of various forces and ideas.

In ancient Greece, the relationship between democracy and citizenship was both foundational and exclusive. Citizenship was a privilege reserved for free male Athenians, which raises significant questions about the inclusivity of democratic ideals. While democracy promised participation and voice, it simultaneously marginalized large segments of the population, including women and slaves, who were excluded from the political process. This contradiction highlights the ongoing struggle for true equality within democratic frameworks and invites us to reflect on the evolving nature of citizenship today.

Examining the limitations of ancient Greek democracy reveals a stark reality: not everyone had a voice. Women and slaves were systematically excluded from political participation, which raises critical questions about who is considered a citizen. This exclusion reflects broader societal norms and illustrates how democratic ideals were not fully realized in practice. As we reflect on these historical injustices, it’s essential to consider how modern democracies can strive for greater inclusivity and representation.

In a democratic society, citizenship comes with a set of expectations and responsibilities. Ancient Greeks believed that active participation in assemblies, military service, and civic engagement were crucial for the health of the democracy. Citizens were not only entitled to rights but also had duties to fulfill. This reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities is vital for maintaining a robust democratic system. Engaging in public life, voting, and contributing to community discussions are all ways individuals can uphold the principles of democracy today.

• What is the main idea of Plato's critique of democracy? Plato argued that democracy could lead to mob rule and the erosion of societal values, proposing the philosopher-king as a better alternative.
• How did Aristotle view democracy? Aristotle provided a pragmatic analysis, advocating for a mixed government that incorporates elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy for stability and justice.
• Who was excluded from political participation in ancient Greece? Women and slaves were excluded from the democratic process, highlighting the limitations of Athenian democracy.
• What responsibilities did citizens have in ancient Greece? Citizens were expected to participate in assemblies, serve in the military, and engage in civic life to maintain a healthy democracy.

This article explores the philosophical foundations of democracy as conceived in ancient Greece, examining key thinkers, their ideas, and the implications for modern democratic practices.

This section delves into the origins of democracy in Athens, highlighting the political reforms of Cleisthenes and the establishment of the Assembly, which laid the groundwork for participatory governance.

An overview of influential philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, focusing on their perspectives on democracy, civic responsibility, and the role of the individual in governance.

Socrates emphasized the importance of virtue and ethics in democratic participation, advocating for informed and moral citizens who contribute thoughtfully to public discourse and decision-making.

Plato critiqued democracy in The Republic, arguing that it could lead to mob rule and the deterioration of societal values, proposing a philosopher-king model as an alternative governance structure. In his view, the chaotic nature of democratic decision-making could result in decisions being swayed by emotion rather than reason, leading the populace to prioritize fleeting desires over the common good. Imagine a ship where the crew, driven by their whims, steer it without a captain—chaos would ensue, and the ship might ultimately sink. This metaphor illustrates Plato's concern: without knowledgeable leadership, society risks becoming a victim of its own impulsiveness.

The concept of the philosopher-king represents Plato's vision of a ruler who possesses wisdom and virtue, ensuring that governance is guided by knowledge rather than popular opinion. According to Plato, a philosopher-king would not only understand the complexities of human nature but also possess the moral compass necessary to lead society toward its highest ideals. This ruler would be akin to a seasoned gardener, carefully tending to the needs of the state, nurturing growth, and ensuring that the weeds of ignorance and selfishness do not take root.

Aristotle provided a more pragmatic view of democracy, analyzing different government forms and advocating for a balanced polity that incorporates elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy.

This section explores the relationship between democracy and citizenship in ancient Greece, discussing who was considered a citizen and the implications for participation in the democratic process.

Examining the limitations of ancient Greek democracy, this subsection highlights the exclusion of women and slaves from political participation, raising questions about the inclusivity of democratic ideals.

This part discusses the expectations placed on citizens in a democratic society, including participation in assemblies, military service, and the importance of civic engagement in maintaining a healthy democracy.

• What is the main idea behind Plato's critique of democracy?

  Plato believed that democracy could lead to mob rule, where decisions are made based on popularity rather than wisdom, resulting in societal decline.

• What is a philosopher-king?

  A philosopher-king is an ideal ruler proposed by Plato, who possesses both wisdom and virtue, ensuring that governance is based on knowledge rather than mere opinion.

• How did Aristotle view democracy?

  Aristotle had a more balanced perspective, suggesting that a good government should incorporate elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy for stability.

In Plato's vision of an ideal state, the concept of the philosopher-king emerges as a pivotal element that challenges our understanding of governance. Imagine a ruler who is not only wise but also possesses a deep sense of virtue and justice. This is the essence of the philosopher-king, a figure who transcends the chaos of popular opinion and guides the state with a steady hand based on knowledge and ethical principles. Plato believed that only those who truly understand the Forms—the ultimate truths and ideals—are fit to govern. This notion raises a compelling question: can wisdom alone ensure good governance?

Plato's critique of democracy stems from his concern that untrained masses, swayed by emotions and superficial rhetoric, could lead society astray. In his work The Republic, he argues that democracy, while seemingly egalitarian, often devolves into a system where the loudest voices drown out the most rational. The philosopher-king stands as a bulwark against this potential descent into mob rule. Rather than relying on the whims of the populace, a philosopher-king would make decisions grounded in reason, aiming for the common good rather than personal gain.

To illustrate this concept further, consider the following attributes that define a philosopher-king:

• Wisdom: A deep understanding of philosophical truths and the complexities of human nature.
• Virtue: A commitment to ethical principles that prioritize the welfare of the state over personal ambition.
• Knowledge: Expertise in various fields, including politics, ethics, and science, enabling informed decision-making.

In essence, the philosopher-king embodies the ideal of a ruler who is not merely a politician but a moral leader. This model challenges us to think critically about our own leaders today. Are they guided by wisdom, or are they swayed by the latest trends and public opinion? Plato's vision prompts us to seek leaders who are not only competent but also committed to the ethical implications of their decisions.

While the philosopher-king is an attractive ideal, it also raises practical questions about implementation. How do we identify such individuals? Can we trust a system that relies on the judgment of a select few? These queries resonate through the ages, prompting ongoing debates about the balance between democracy and the necessity of informed leadership. Ultimately, the role of the philosopher-king serves as a reminder that governance should be about more than just power; it should strive for a higher purpose—one that fosters justice and promotes the well-being of all citizens.

• What is a philosopher-king? A philosopher-king is a ruler who possesses both wisdom and virtue, guiding the state based on knowledge rather than popular opinion.
• Why did Plato criticize democracy? Plato criticized democracy because he believed it could lead to mob rule, where uninformed masses make decisions based on emotion rather than reason.
• Can the philosopher-king model work in modern governance? While the philosopher-king model presents an ideal, its practicality in modern governance is debated, raising questions about the selection and accountability of leaders.

Aristotle, often regarded as the father of political science, brought a unique perspective to the discussion of democracy through his seminal work, Politics. Unlike his predecessors, Aristotle didn’t just philosophize about ideals; he rolled up his sleeves and examined the messy reality of political life. He believed that the essence of democracy could be understood through a systematic analysis of its various forms. In his view, democracy was not simply a standalone system but rather one of several forms of governance that needed to be balanced for the good of the state.

Aristotle introduced the concept of the "mixed government," proposing that the best political system would incorporate elements from democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. This blend, he argued, would create a more stable and just society. He believed that each form of government had its strengths and weaknesses, and by combining them, one could mitigate the risks associated with each. For instance, while democracy empowers the masses, it can also lead to chaos if unchecked. Conversely, oligarchy can provide stability but may disregard the needs of the majority.

To illustrate his point, Aristotle employed what can be described as the "arithmetic" of governance. He categorized political systems based on who rules and for whose benefit. This led him to identify three good forms of government: monarchy (rule by one for the common good), aristocracy (rule by a few for the common good), and polity (a form of democracy that serves the common good). Conversely, he identified three corrupt forms: tyranny (monarchy for the ruler's benefit), oligarchy (a few ruling for their own benefit), and democracy (the many ruling for their own benefit, often leading to mob rule).

In Aristotle's view, the ideal state is one where the middle class is empowered, as they are less likely to be swayed by extremes. He argued that a large, stable middle class would create a more equitable society, reducing the potential for class conflict. This is where Aristotle's arithmetic becomes particularly insightful – he believed that the balance of power among various classes could lead to a more harmonious society. By ensuring that no single group held excessive power, the state could achieve a form of governance that truly represented the interests of all citizens.

In essence, Aristotle’s analysis of democracy is a call for balance and moderation. He challenges us to think critically about the systems we create and the values we uphold. It’s not just about who gets to vote; it’s about creating a system where every voice matters, and where governance is a collective endeavor rather than a battleground for power. This perspective remains relevant today as we navigate the complexities of modern democratic systems. In a world where polarization often reigns, Aristotle’s call for a balanced polity serves as a potent reminder of the importance of inclusivity and civic responsibility in our democratic practices.

• What is Aristotle's view on democracy? Aristotle saw democracy as one of several forms of governance and emphasized the importance of balancing it with other systems for a stable society.
• How does Aristotle define a good government? He defines a good government as one that rules for the common good, whether it be through monarchy, aristocracy, or polity.
• What is the role of the middle class in Aristotle's political theory? Aristotle believed that a strong middle class is crucial for a balanced and equitable society, as they are less likely to be swayed by extremes.

In ancient Greece, particularly in Athens, the concept of citizenship was not just a legal status; it was a badge of honor, a commitment to the collective well-being of the city-state. Citizenship was intertwined with the very essence of democracy, as it defined who had the right to participate in the political process. But what exactly did it mean to be a citizen in this vibrant society? To answer this question, we need to explore the criteria for citizenship and the responsibilities that accompanied it.

First and foremost, citizenship was primarily limited to free-born males who had completed their military training. This exclusivity meant that a significant portion of the population, including women, slaves, and foreigners, were systematically excluded from participating in the democratic process. Imagine a theater where only a select few are allowed on stage while the rest sit in the audience, cheering or jeering but never taking part in the performance. This analogy highlights the limitations of Athenian democracy, where the voices of many were silenced.

Moreover, the implications of citizenship extended beyond mere participation in voting or attending assemblies. Citizens were expected to engage actively in civic life, which included:

• Participating in the Assembly, where laws were debated and voted upon.
• Serving in the military to defend the city-state.
• Taking part in the judicial system, often by serving as jurors in trials.

These responsibilities were seen as vital for maintaining the health of the democracy. Citizens were not just passive recipients of rights; they were active contributors to the governance and moral fabric of their society. This expectation of civic engagement raises an intriguing question: how does this ancient framework of citizenship compare to our modern understanding?

In contemporary democracies, the definition of citizenship has evolved to be more inclusive, allowing women and minorities to participate fully in the political process. However, the ancient Greeks set a precedent that prompts us to reflect on the nature of participation. Are we truly engaging all voices in our societies today? Or are there still groups that remain on the fringes, much like the excluded citizens of ancient Athens?

As we delve deeper into the relationship between democracy and citizenship, it becomes evident that the ancient practices and philosophies still resonate today. The core principles of civic duty and active participation are just as relevant now as they were thousands of years ago. Understanding these historical contexts allows us to appreciate the evolution of democratic ideals and the ongoing struggle for inclusivity in governance.

• What defined citizenship in ancient Greece? Citizenship was generally reserved for free-born males who had completed military training, excluding women, slaves, and foreigners.
• What were the responsibilities of a citizen in ancient Athens? Citizens were expected to participate in the Assembly, serve in the military, and engage in the judicial system as jurors.
• How has the concept of citizenship evolved over time? Modern democracies have expanded the definition of citizenship to include women and minorities, promoting inclusivity in political participation.
• Why is civic engagement important? Civic engagement ensures that citizens contribute to the governance and moral fabric of society, which is essential for a healthy democracy.

When we think about democracy, we often picture a system where everyone has a voice, right? But let’s take a step back and look at ancient Greece, particularly Athens, where democracy was born. Surprisingly, this so-called democratic system was anything but inclusive. In fact, it was built on the exclusion of significant portions of the population, namely women and slaves. Imagine living in a society where your rights and voice are completely disregarded simply because of your gender or social status. This was the reality for many in ancient Greece.

Women, for instance, were largely relegated to the private sphere. They had no formal political rights and were excluded from participating in the Assembly, which was the heart of Athenian democracy. While men debated laws and policies, women were expected to manage the household and raise children. It’s almost as if they were viewed as second-class citizens, despite the fact that they contributed significantly to the economy and society. The prevailing belief was that women lacked the rational capacity needed for political decision-making. This leads us to a pivotal question: how can a democracy claim to be just when it excludes half of its population?

On the other hand, slaves, who were an integral part of the Athenian economy, also found themselves on the outside looking in. They were considered property rather than people, devoid of rights and voice. Many slaves were skilled workers, artisans, and even educated individuals, yet their contributions went unrecognized in the political arena. This exclusion raises another critical point: the very foundation of Athenian democracy was built upon an economy that thrived on slavery. A system that claims to promote freedom and equality cannot truly be democratic if it relies on the oppression of others.

To further illustrate this point, let’s break down the demographics of Athenian citizenship:

Category	Rights	Participation in Democracy
Free Male Citizens	Full rights	Active participation in the Assembly
Women	No political rights	Excluded
Slaves	No rights	Excluded
Metics (Foreign Residents)	Limited rights	Excluded from political participation

This table highlights the stark reality of who was considered a citizen in ancient Athens. The exclusion of women and slaves from political life not only undermined the principles of democracy but also raises important questions about the nature of citizenship. What does it mean to be a citizen in a democracy? Is it merely having the right to vote, or does it encompass a broader sense of belonging and participation? In ancient Greece, the answer was clear: citizenship was a privilege reserved for a select few, leaving many voices unheard and unrepresented.

In conclusion, while ancient Athens is often celebrated as the cradle of democracy, it is crucial to recognize its limitations. The exclusion of women and slaves serves as a reminder that true democracy must strive for inclusivity, ensuring that all voices are heard and valued. As we look at modern democratic practices, we should ask ourselves: are we truly inclusive, or are we repeating the mistakes of the past?

• Why were women excluded from Athenian democracy? Women were believed to lack the rational capacity for political decision-making and were expected to focus on domestic roles.
• How did slavery impact Athenian democracy? The economy relied heavily on slavery, which undermined the democratic ideals of freedom and equality.
• What can modern democracies learn from ancient Greek exclusions? Modern democracies should prioritize inclusivity and ensure that all citizens, regardless of gender or social status, have a voice in governance.

In ancient Greece, the concept of democracy was not merely about the right to vote; it was deeply intertwined with the idea of civic duty. Citizens were expected to actively participate in the political process, ensuring that democracy was not just a privilege but a responsibility. This sense of duty was essential in fostering a vibrant and functioning democracy, as it encouraged individuals to engage with their community and contribute to the common good.

The responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society were multifaceted. They included participating in the Assembly, where critical decisions were made regarding laws, public policies, and the direction of the city-state. Citizens were expected to voice their opinions, debate issues, and vote on matters that directly affected their lives. This participatory approach was vital for ensuring that the government reflected the will of the people. Imagine a bustling forum filled with citizens, each eager to share their thoughts and influence the future of their society—this was the essence of Athenian democracy.

Moreover, civic engagement extended beyond mere participation in assemblies. Citizens were also expected to fulfill military duties, defending the city-state from external threats. This obligation was seen as a natural extension of their rights as citizens; after all, if one enjoyed the benefits of living in a democratic society, one should also be willing to protect it. The military service was not just a duty but a way to demonstrate commitment to the community.

In addition to these formal responsibilities, there was an implicit expectation for citizens to engage in public discourse. This meant staying informed about political matters, understanding the implications of various policies, and discussing these issues with fellow citizens. The health of the democracy depended on the quality of its citizens' engagement. A well-informed citizenry could lead to better decision-making and a more robust political process.

However, it's crucial to acknowledge that not everyone in ancient Greece was considered a citizen. Women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded from these civic duties, raising significant questions about the inclusivity of democratic ideals. While the responsibilities of citizens were clear, the definition of who qualified as a citizen was limited, highlighting a paradox at the heart of Athenian democracy.

In conclusion, the civic duties and responsibilities of ancient Greek citizens were foundational to the practice of democracy. By participating in assemblies, serving in the military, and engaging in public discourse, citizens upheld the democratic values of their society. Yet, as we reflect on these responsibilities, we must also consider the broader implications of citizenship and the ongoing struggle for inclusivity in democratic systems today.

• What were the main civic duties of citizens in ancient Greece? Citizens were expected to participate in the Assembly, serve in the military, and engage in public discourse.
• Who was excluded from citizenship in ancient Greece? Women, slaves, and foreigners were typically excluded from the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
• How did civic duties contribute to the health of democracy? Active participation ensured that the government reflected the will of the people and fostered a sense of community responsibility.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the origin of democracy in ancient Greece?

  Democracy in ancient Greece, particularly in Athens, originated around the 5th century BCE. It was established through the political reforms of Cleisthenes, who introduced measures that allowed for greater citizen participation in governance, leading to the formation of the Assembly where free male citizens could debate and vote on important issues.

• Who were the key philosophers that influenced democratic thought?

  Several key philosophers shaped the discourse around democracy, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates emphasized the importance of ethical citizenship, advocating for informed participation. Plato critiqued democracy in his work "The Republic," suggesting that it could lead to mob rule, while Aristotle offered a more practical approach by analyzing different forms of government and advocating for a balanced polity.

• What was Socrates' view on democracy?

  Socrates believed that a healthy democracy required virtuous and educated citizens who could engage in meaningful dialogue and decision-making. He argued that ethical considerations should guide public discourse, emphasizing the need for individuals to be informed and morally responsible in their civic duties.

• How did Plato critique democracy?

  In "The Republic," Plato expressed concern that democracy could devolve into chaos and mob rule. He proposed the idea of a philosopher-king—an enlightened ruler who would govern based on wisdom and knowledge rather than popular opinion, thereby safeguarding societal values and order.

• What is the role of the philosopher-king?

  The philosopher-king is a central figure in Plato’s vision of governance. This ideal ruler possesses both wisdom and virtue, ensuring that decisions are made for the benefit of the society as a whole, rather than being swayed by the whims of the populace.

• How did Aristotle view democracy?

  Aristotle provided a more nuanced perspective on democracy. He analyzed various forms of government and advocated for a mixed system that incorporates elements of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. He believed that a balanced polity could promote stability and fairness in governance.

• Who was considered a citizen in ancient Greece?

  In ancient Greece, citizenship was limited primarily to free males who were born to Athenian parents. This exclusion meant that women, slaves, and foreign residents were denied the rights to participate in the democratic process, raising questions about the inclusivity of democratic ideals.

• What were the civic duties of citizens in ancient Greece?

  Citizens in ancient Greece had several responsibilities, including participation in the Assembly, military service, and engaging in civic life. These duties were seen as essential to maintaining a healthy democracy, as active participation was crucial for the functioning of the political system.

• How did the exclusion of women and slaves impact democracy?

  The exclusion of women and slaves from the democratic process highlighted significant limitations in the democratic ideals of ancient Greece. It raises important questions about equality and representation, suggesting that while democracy was a groundbreaking concept, it was not fully realized for all members of society.