Plato wrote Republic in 375 B.C. It was a state-of-the-art book for its time. Gods, Demigods, Pharoahs, kings, emperors, and despots have failed or were failing incredibly. It was becoming clear that absolute authority and ownership of one person was not the solution. Humanity was desperately craving for answers and solutions. The idea of one savior was so deeply rooted in minds for thousands of years worldwide that most people could not even imagine any alternative. What would happen if we did not have this one powerful, all-knowing protector? They were told that only this influential person controls everything and is disciplined. Without him or her, there will be utter chaos everywhere. No one’s life, liberty, and property will be safe. Streets will be full of violence, and there will be blood flowing everywhere.
Plato changed that delusional picture. He told the world that sharing authority is not just good; it will be a blessing for humanity. He outlined a structure for the first time in which the rulers would officially and formally share the authority. The original idea was to give everyone a share in power that was possible at the time. People would gather in Ekklasia to vote by raising their hands and discussing various issues. This led to the shouting contests and secret stone ballots. Only free and male citizens could vote. However, Greeks were smart enough to realize historical, logical, and statistical facts quickly. The dominating sentiment ultimately was that elections did not give individuals true power and authority. That is why significantly fewer elections happened.
However, the view that prevailed at the time was that all authority in the hands of one person does not do justice, and elections are not the solution either.
Earlier, Protagoras, the founder of Sophism, Laid down the foundations of subjectivism. He concluded that every individual experience is highly subjective. Although very well respected by Plato and many other philosophers, this insight got lost under the fervor for later objectivism. It was mistakenly thought that some extra intelligent and wise people could objectively determine everyone else’s experience. This thinking is highly flawed and led to countless problems at the individual and societal levels. You can confirm this extreme flaw by going to the local supermarket. You will see different people picking different items and brands, although everyone is offered the same deal on every available item. Some may leave the market empty-handed, and others may walk out with a cart full of items. If you apply correct logic to this observation, you will immediately realize that no one can determine everything for everyone, no matter how wise and knowledgeable. Even if someone does, it will not be justifiable and highly coercive, requiring extreme brute force to make people comply.
It will be highly violent. The basic reason for this is that every individual’s experiences are highly variable and subjective. Even with the same experience, people may have different interpretations and satisfaction levels, ranging from the most satisfied to the most unsatisfied. This shows up in every aspect of your life: your choice of partner, clothing, a place to live, a car, the doctor that you chose, and earnings that you prefer.
Although there are many objective facts, these are called natural laws. The whole universe exists because it tightly and finely obeys natural laws all the time, everywhere, and in everything. Life is a bit of an exception to this rule of natural laws. Living beings have some choice. They can often choose one action or the other, many times in opposite directions.
Humans have an extra layer of freedom over other life. It is called morality, although some advanced species of animals also show some level of morality. Nature has given humans an extra sense of morality, right or wrong, good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable. Humans can take a moral, immoral action, or anything in between. No human could be entirely moral or immoral. Everyone is in between. The only difference is in the level and degree of morality or immorality. Humans also have the ability to figure out natural laws objectively, logically, and scientifically. We have discovered many objective facts like gravity, laws of motion, relativity, quantum mechanics, optics, fluid dynamics, etc. We have also figured out the most fundamental moral principle, “It is immoral to initiate force against someone else,” because the survival and prosperity of the entire species depend on adopting this principle.
Like everything else, adopting this non-aggression principle is never perfect. But the better the adoption, the more peaceful the society is. The ideal situation in compliance with the principle would be the end of all coercive and aggressive authorities like governments and organized religions. Although societies have existed where there was no coercive authority, currently, the examples are none too scarce. One recent and probably the best example of a moral and non-coercive society was early America. America, especially in the West, had almost a complete absence of coercive forces for at least one hundred years. America showed the fastest and most significant growth recorded in human history. Freedom did miracles. Within two hundred years, Americans built the largest and richest economy, the largest and most prosperous middle class, and the fastest poverty rate decline ever.
This was the result of the objective moral reality. On the other hand, many different aspects of life are entirely subjective. Satisfaction and happiness, for example. Only your freedom of action and only your own choices make you happy. No one can and must get it determined for you. Which grocery store you go to, which clothing brands you like, which neighborhood you want to live in, how you take care of your health and learning, and which car you want to drive are entirely your own avenues to your satisfaction and happiness. No one else can and must not determine that for you. Subjective or objective, truth is truth. Only some of these are objective, and subjectivity has no value in this case. Examples are laws of physics and morality. Other aspects of life are subjective, and objectivity has no value in this case. Examples are happiness and satisfaction.