In Chapter 2 of the The Republic Glaucon, the brother of Plato, challenged Socrates to provide a reason to act morally even when immorality appeared more profitable. He related the story of the ring of Gyges, a ring which gives the wearer invisibility and hence preserves his (or her ) anonymity in committing the most egregious of crimes. Such a person may maintain his reputation for good while stealing, pillaging and seducing at will.
Is such a challenge asking too much? Is the only way to provide a valid reason to act morally an appeal to virtue as its own reward, without any consideration of the external benefits? Is it enough that morality is more profitable than immorality MOST of the time, even if not in the wildly implausible thought experiment of the Ring of Gyges?
I do think this challenge is asking way too much of anyone. The Ring of Gyges will never happen, and there's nothing like it in real life. Anyone who consistently performs immoral acts eventually gets caught and has to face the consequences. Even if one thought one could get away with immorality in a single instance, you can never be 100% sure you're going to get away with such an act.
ReplyDeleteThis also raises the question of what goals are worth obtaining. While one could undoubtedly become rich with such a ring, it has been proven that money doesn't buy happiness. On the other hand, people who consistently perform moral acts are happier than those who don't. In the story Glaucon provides, the man who obtains the ring ends up killing the king. With the exception of sociopaths, anyone who kills another person is inevitably going to feel feelings of deep guilt strong enough to ensure that any profit from killing the person is not worth it.
I believe that the whole idea of the Ring of Gyges puts people in an awful position. Is it right for one to act immorally if they know that everyone will still believe they are moral? I think the answer to this question is no, it is not acceptable for someone to act immoral in any circumstance. As Geofphdr mentioned previously, no person can be 100% sure that they will be able to slide under the radar after participating in an immoral act. In fact, it seems that most of the time, a person cannot get away with an immoral act, possibly getting caught in the moment, or having it come back to you later in life.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that the man who chooses to use the Ring, is still immoral and looses all of their pride and dignity and is left with a sense of immorality and guilt. Although that man is sure that he wont get get caught when wearing the Ring, due to the invisibility, he still will have an internal sense of remorse as well as a bad conscience. The people of the community might believe that this man in moral, but the man himself knows he is immoral. I think that is even worse than everyone knowing the truth. Part of morality is telling the truth, and this man is putting on a fake front and lying to every member of the community that knows him as a moral man.
Also, a secret or feeling is hard to keep all bottled up, especially a feeling with great emotion and meaning to a person (i.e. guilt). It would drive someone crazy to know that they partook in some terrible crime and they couldn't tell anyone or else it would ruin their reputation of morality. All in all, immorality has no benefit to oneself, therefore a person should involve themselves in immoral actions.
We do things because of their consequences. Virtually nothing is inherently good nor inherently evil. Glaucon is thus asking too much of Socrates. The example we came up with in class, of seeing an ascetically beautiful landscape as being good for its own sake is confused. The eye sees the landscape and then takes pleasure from the sight. The consequences of seeing the beauty is the pleasure gained by the viewer. Glaucon does not come up with an example of something that is inherently good or inherently bad, thus he should not expect Socrates to do so. Further more, his scenario of the Ring of Gyges, which turns people invisible thus allowing them to act however they wish without any consequences, is entirely unrealistic and thus should not be considered. There is no realistic way that someone could act completely immorally and not suffer consequences or harm to their reputation. Socrates should not have to consider unrealistic examples to contradict his realistic interpretation of morality. Even if you view Socrates’ discussion of morality as completely theoretical, his examples are more realistic then Glaucon’s.
ReplyDeleteFor instance Socrates response to Glaucon’s question of why morality is inherently good is to describe an ideal community. Even though the moral community is ideal, it is realistically possible. It’s possible that there could be a community where there are an elite group, the guardians, that are educated a certain way in order to produce a certain kind of intelligence. There is often a hierarchy in society similar to the one Socrates describes. There have been compounds that are comparable to the ones Socrates places the Guardians at to live. Thus Socrates community is based in reality even though its theoretical while Glaucon’s counter argument of the Ring of Gyges is not realistic and should be discarded.
I believe that morality doesn’t necessarily need to be proven inherently good in order to make is better then immorality. Benefiting from good consequence is enough to be moral. There will never be an opportunity where a person can predict that there will be no negative consequence from acting immorally and thus one should never act immorally.
I think that the notion that people have an obligation to act morally even when they can get away with an immoral act is completely reasonable. It is not uncommon to find circumstances in which people refrain from doing something even when there are no consequences. For example, I think it's safe to assume that the majority of people do not cheat on their spouses (at least in places other than France). Often times people refrain from doing this out of the fear of being caught. However sometimes people don't cheat on their spouses, even if they are tempted to do so, for the sole reason that they feel loyal to their loved ones. Even without the threat of being caught, most people have been taught and raised with the belief that infidelity is wrong, thus many people refrain from it, or don't even consider doing it for the reason that it is wrong and that they understand the essence of being in a committed relationship. Another example is when people become vegetarians/vegans. As a former vegetarian I can attest that it is not an easy or really nutritious life style especially when you don't eat salad or really any vegetables as I did. I did however get a rewarding feeling from the knowledge that I was doing what I thought was right. I knew that my little individual change in diet wouldn't affect the meat industry, let alone put an end to the killing of animals, but I still felt that even though my becoming a vegetarian would have no effect on anything other than myself, I felt that it was the right thing to do and thus felt good about it. I personally do not believe in such a thing as innately good or bad human nature, so thus I cannot claim that humans will act immorally or morally if left alone. I can say however that even without consequences many people will choose to act morally due to the reason that they have been raised and taught to do what they think is right and thus are compelled by some inner stigma to act "properly" however that may be.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may seem to be an extreme way to assess the nature of one's morality, the challenge of the Ring of Gyges is not an unreasonable way to make conclusions regarding one's morality. Throughout the lives of many people, a sense of what is morally "right" and "wrong" develops. It is this sense of what one views as proper behavior that molds their personality along with their action. It is true that this sense of "right" vs. "wrong" is established early on in one's life because of the reactions of others to their behavior. These reactions may consist of rewarding and applauding good behavior, or criticizing and punishing bad behavior. Because most people seek a positive reaction, they choose good behavior because of of its effects on them. So, as that person's life goes on, they may accept morality for the good it causes them, for what it may cause around them, or not at all. The person who performs moral actions for the benefit of others is truly moral, while the person who acts morally for their own gain is only moral on the surface. The challenge of the Ring of Gyges may serve as a way to test whether one is truly moral. The person who is truly moral would not even consider using the ring because of the harm that it would do to others despite his material gain. The person who acts moral on the surface would use the ring because of what it would give them. While some people may not consider such an unrealistic test as that for the Ring of Gyges as a good test for one's morality, it is its extreme nature that serves to highlight the nature of one's morality. This nature can show itself as being concerned with morality for the good it causes, or for what it will provide the individual.
ReplyDeleteThough there is a strong temptation to use the Ring of Gyges, I believe that the challenge of choosing to be moral or being allowed to act immorally while seeming moral is too much of a task. However, I believe that this challenge in particular provides a multi-pointed dilemma; in other words, it can hit you at a few different points. If you choose to act morally, then you have a clear conscience, however you miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime to do whatever you want with out consequences. On the flip side, if you take the alternate route and do use the Ring of Gyges, it will be an emotional and mental strain on you. The aftereffects of the act could result in future problems in the person. The guilt that a moral person would feel if they did something immoral could be cataclysmic.
ReplyDeleteAfter the person decides whether or not they want to go through with it, they would then need to take into effect and possibilities about the situation. What if the Ring doesn’t work for me? What if it shorts out? What if there is a time limit? Will the Ring to any harm to me physically? If someone did decide to use the Ring, they would have to ask these questions to themselves first, and then decide again if they want to look past the things that could happen and go through with it. Then if they do manage to do what they wanted, there can always be consequences. Things spread, and investigators are getting better and better. So even if you are invisible, there is still that risk that someone will catch you.
Of course the Ring of Gyges is a hypothetical situation; however for each action there are questions that one must ask themselves that will test their morality. Even if it is something as small as telling a lie, there will always be the implication that this is wrong and something bad may happen if it is completed. It takes a truly strong mind to stay in a sense of morality, but the benefits of staying moral can greatly out weigh the consequences, regardless of how great their benefit is.
The challenge of the ring of Gyges is an impossible one. While the idea may be appealing, that one can commit any crime without being caught, it is utterly false. There are always repercussions to choices we make and the actions we do. Most times the outcome is felt relatively immediately, but it could be many years later when the deed catches up to you. Also, for 'normal' human beings, we are governed by our concience. Although we may deny this, feelings of guilt weigh heavily on us. So even though we may not be caught, internally we will feel just as trapped and miserable as we would if we were caught. Ironically, in most cases this guilt propels people to eventually come clean and reveal the truth. So even if the Ring of Gyges was not complete fiction, the real emotions we feel would expose our true immoral actions. Now, for the few people who do not feel guilt after commiting a crime, usually they gain overconfidence and are also eventually exposed. So while the immediate outcome of immoral actions appear to be more benificial than morality, in the long run it is not. People should choose morality over immorality becuase at the end of the day they will be truly happier. Even with the wealth or benifits of immorality, they will eventually feel empty and meaningless. As the common expression says: "Money can't buy you happiness."
ReplyDeleteBut in the universal scope we must wonder if acting moral or immoral truly matters. At the literal End, it doesn't matter. Dead is dead. But for the time we are alive, acting morally will most likely make the experiance of life better for you and those around you.
I think that asking whether the challenge of acting morally with the Ring of Gyges is too much for humans is the same as questioning whether stealing from your grandma’s wallet when the opportunity presents itself an unfair situation of morality because everyone can’t resist that temptation. I have to assume that everyone is far too selfish in their need of the idea of self worth to allow themselves to commit acts such as these. In this vein I must say that the situation of the Ring of Gyges isn’t asking an unreasonable amount of willpower to resist.
ReplyDeleteMany of the reasons behind why we do the things that we do rest on the fear of consequences. I stop at red lights even when I know that there isn’t a cop around because a part of me is afraid that there is indeed a cop lurking where I can’t see and I’ll get pulled over and also because I’m afraid that if I go through it I’ll get hit from the traffic coming in the opposite direction. The former part of idea is my innate fear of breaking the rules because of the consequences of those who enforce it and the latter part addresses my value in self preservation. Though I am acting morally and waiting for the light to change, my fear of possible negative consequences outweighs the possible gain.
I think that I think that embedded in the idea of morality is narcissism. I don’t steal from my grandmother’s purse not because I think I’ll get caught but because I know that I won’t be able to live with myself afterward. This notion sounds like having a good conscience but I think it is more of an example of my own selfishness. I want to continue thinking that I am a good person and that I deserve the good things that happen to me because of the good things that I have done. I don’t cheat on tests even when I easily could because it gives me pride to resist immoral acts. Though Plato maintains that you can uphold a good reputation while pillaging with the Ring of Gyges, you cannot consider yourself as continuing to be a good person. The appeal of the Ring of Gyges is centered on our narcissistic wish to be seen as good people. We cannot hide the fact from ourselves that we are doing wrong and we are far too selfish to allow ourselves to know that we are immoral if we use the Ring of Gyges. In this way, morality is infinitely more profitable than immorality because it inflates our ego.