On Plato and Playing the Martyr

In class we discussed three main styles of ethics from Machiavelli, Lincoln, and Plato. According to Machiavelli, any means should justify an end, so long as the end is worth pursuing. Essentially, he believed that it was better to make decisions that will help one retain power. He also believed that it is more effective to be a self-centered leader who occasionally does nice things for the people than to be a selfless leader who occasionally disregards the desires of the people. Straying from the norm in the former situation would come as a pleasant surprise to the people, while the latter situation would only cause the people to lose faith in a leader.  Lincoln's form of ethics is that of an agent, where a person should disregard personal desires and the desires of the general public to do what is best for the company. Finally, Plato believed that it is best for a person to be selfless and always disregard their personal desires to do what is best for the people. By doing so, Plato believes that by keeping the people happy, the benefits will flow into the individual's life as well, making up for the sacrifice.
Plato's style of ethics may appear ideal, but I find it difficult to view it as the best form of ethics. Essentially, it is too idealistic to believe that if a person sacrifices his or her own desires to do what is best for society, then society will be at peace and in turn the peace will overflow into the individual's life, compensating that person for his or her sacrifice. If one considers society as all people, then it is difficult to believe that one specific action will benefit all of society. If the action does not benefit all of society, then it seems unlikely that the results will be so positive that they will compensate the individual for sacrificing their own desires.
Essentially, I feel that Plato's ethics ask for an individual to play the role of the martyr. The individual performs selfless tasks for the good of the people, despite personal desires. Sure, great opportunities may flow into that person's life as a result of the decisions that they make, but if that person goes against their own moral values, then it could cause more detriment to the individual than the flow of positiveness from the people can justify. Unless an individual feeds off of the intrinsic value of doing what is right for the people, in which case the reward of a selfless action is found in the simple satisfaction of pleasing the people, it seems unlikely that a person will benefit from such an action. Furthermore, unless the individual's will is aligned perfectly with that of the people, it would appear that such actions are not entirely selfless since the individual will be performing an action to make his or herself feel good. In an ideal world, I think Plato's ethics are effective, but when applied in real-life situations, they do not provide enough of an overflowing benefit to the individual who is sacrificing personal desires to compensate for what the individual loses by passing on an action that would better suit personal wishes or morals.