The reason I put "morals" in quotations is because there is arguably no such thing as morals, they are merely an artifact of religion, pretensions, and assumptions. Kant's attempt to grasp the strings of an objective morality, despite his renown, is feeble at best, only intricately garbed in unnecessary language. Other philosophers base their moral claims on either God or some underlying highest good, and function from a logical (hopefully) algorithm from the foundation to the actual. Morality is only real in so far as what is best appropriate for the interpreters goals. This is to say, morality is completely subjective, with indeed no convergence in the real world, like you say. In fact, morality is so subjective that it might as well be left off, replacing the word "morality" with "success" or something: subjective success. "Morality" is achieved when a person acts in the way that is best suited to his/her goals, whether he/she knows it or not. (Note that these are not necessarily the obvious goals we have. Most people have the goal of being financially successful, and acting "morally" helps this to an extent. But other goals are present in the analysis of "morality" such as the desire to stay free, out of prison, the desire to be "fair," whatever that means. Also, merely the goal of not having a negative emotional response that comes when some people to "bad" things to others) The philosopher kings' goals, as per the nature of their station, is to steer the nation that they govern into happiness, prosperity, or whatever they deem is best for the people. Therefore, their position in society IS morality, though I'd rather stay away from the word because it is so meaningless. Secondly, there can be arrangements to establish authority or agreement within the ranks of philosopher kings. There could be one senior philosopher king who has supreme authority. There could be democratic elections within the ranks to determine what is best. They could just take turns on who has the final word each time. They could similarly rotate through the position of supreme authority. They could have a chess tournament, and whoever wins decides. They could just draw straws. There are any number of ways to ensure agreement, and sure, they each have their own risks, but every creation of humans, in our imperfection, will too be imperfect. We can try to minimize this, despite ourselves. Ultimately, the way to find agreement would be left to themselves. They would realize that being at a stalemate is not what is best for their nation, so they would be forced to figure something out. Also, it is possible that those who seem to be unable to find agreement would not pass the trials that are required to gain admittance into the sect.
Your second, assuredly more serious, presented problem is, I believe, one borne from your life in a democratic society. In our society, we feel like our representatives are of ourselves, and that we are all equals in the matter, that our opinion should be respected as equally as theirs. This, I believe, is a fallacy derived from our constant desire for self satisfaction. Hopefully, in the philosopher king world, the notion that the general public truly has a valid voice in the matter would not be an issue. Just like for the most part subjects of monarchies understood that they did not have a say in the matters of government, so too would the subjects of the philosopher kings understand that it was not their place. The whole idea behind this is to get certain things as far away from government as possible.
Yoto_Yoto wrote:People are as they have always been, not very bright, neither particularly noble nor abnormally venal, but basically capable of governing themselves.
As you said, people aren't great. The average person always has been and always will be ignorant, selfish, short-sighted, imprudent, rash, vindictive, vengeful, self-gratifying, violent, and fearful. The certain things that we ought to keep separated from government are THE PEOPLE and MONEY. A society that bends much to the will of the general public is a society that is molded and maneuvered by imbeciles. The thought should never be given to the people that their opinions count for anything in the matter. The people would not be oppressed or be done injustice, because those vices are the product of greed and vengeance . Therefore, like when good kings have actually reigned in this world, the people need no convincing, because the actions of the leadership are convincing enough. And, should people still need convincing, when shown the rationality of the kings actions, they should be convinced.