Final answer:
Plato's ideas of a meritocratic state ruled by philosopher-kings would most offend those committed to democracy, as he criticizes the democratic system for promoting average rule without a pursuit of excellence or a unified standard.
Step-by-step explanation:
Plato's ideas about a well-ordered state are likely to offend those with a commitment to democracy. Plato's philosophy espouses a meritocratic society where each part, or person, contributes according to their natural aptitude, with the 'guardians' of the state — philosopher-rulers — presiding over the harmonious organization of societal roles.
This social structure is focused on the common good and justice, which to Plato meant every individual doing their job without interfering in the roles of others. His views are rooted in the belief that philosopher-rulers, devoid of the temptation of personal gain and with the wisdom to know what is best for society, should govern. In contrast, Plato criticized democracy for being the rule of the average, prone to mob rule without a clear pursuit of self-improvement or adherence to higher standards.
In a Platonic state, the virtues of wisdom, courage, discipline, and justice are paramount, and these are distributed among the different classes. The ruling class, or 'guardians', are expected to exhibit wisdom and courage, while all citizens should practice discipline. Justice in this context becomes a harmonious operation where each class performs its role for the greater good of society. Communal living, especially among the ruling class, and disapproval of wealth accumulation are notable aspects of Plato's ideal state, which contrasts with individualistic and capitalistic democratic values.