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?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you were to ask most people whether or not they’d ‘act morally’ and not use the Ring of Gyges to fulfill their own personal immoral desires, they would undoubtedly say no. To ask this of most people is asking entirely too much because with this kind of power and capability most people would throw morals right out the window. Take the situation in which the 3 men were in during the movie that we watched in class for example, they took the money despite it being immoral because that money could and would help them obtain their innermost desires. When rare opportunities such as these, (finding millions of dollars or having the Ring of Gyges), it is almost a natural occurrence that even a moral person would be forced to if nothing else think of acting immoral and act upon those thoughts in the most rational way possible for that opportunity may never come around again.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Socrates makes and proves his argument that being moral is more profitable than being immoral MOST of the time, in a situation such as this where a ring could give you everything you ever wanted and still uphold your image as a moral person, being immoral is definitely more profitable. Making the right choice with the Ring of Gyges and not taking advantage of it to gain an individual’s own personal desires is a task that not even a moral person could achieve. The entire mindset behind being moral is weighing one’s options before making a decision and making the most rational decision. If a moral person were faced with the decision to gain riches by using the Ring of Gyges why would he/she find it irrational? You wouldn’t get caught, there’d be no punishment, you’d still be viewed as moral, and you’d be rich. So in essence unless being immoral is an irrational decision, which Socrates doesn’t argue, then being immoral with the Ring of Gyges is truly the correct rational decision.
True morality should be rewarding no matter the external consequences just as true immorality should be tortuous no matter the external rewards. Happiness and unhappiness are reliant on internal feelings, not external gains or losses. Truly moral people are satisfied with themselves because they are acting in accordance with their beliefs and have no doubts in what they choose to do. On the other hand, immoral people make choices that defy what is right. These choices are impossible to come to terms with and leave a person agitated and unhappy. Cephalus puts this well, claiming, if an immoral man at the end of his life “finds many injustices in his life, he often even awakes from sleep in a terror as children do, and lives in anticipation of evils to come” (330e: 5-6). Cephalus explains that immoral people know that they are wrong and live in fear of the consequences of their actions. As in the case of the Ring of Gyges, these consequences are never realized, yet there is still guilt and nervousness associated with acting immorally. A moral person is never internally conflicted and can be at ease knowing that they have acted morally. Even if the moral person is never rewarded externally they can be happy with themselves and their actions and most importantly not live with guilt or fear. Additionally, Socrates astutely points out that an immoral person can never be happy, regardless of the external rewards he receives, because his desires are insatiable; no matter what he receives externally he will never be satisfied and thus never be content. A moral person is in control of their desires and is happy to lead a moral life even if there are no rewards involved.
ReplyDeleteIf any random person was given the Ring of Gyges, they will almost certainly use the ring to do some immoral act that would benefit their life in a way moral actions could not. However, this belief is in direct conflict with the notion that a person will act morally just because morality is way to act, even without positive consequences. Plato believes it is better for a person to act morally because a moral person will be happier than an immoral one, and spends the entire book, the Republic, justifying this. A person with the Ring of Gyges seems to be exempt from this notion because of an extremely rare/impossible situation, and therefore can act anyway they want, uphold their reputation and still be “moral”. A person with the Ring of Gyges may be seen by the world as an outstanding citizen, but as mentioned by Bella, there are internal feelings that also affect the person. Internally, a person will see themselves for what they are, and the person with the Ring of Gyges will see themselves and an immoral person and will feel guilt associated with their immoral acts. These internal feelings will cause the person to be unhappy and thereby prove Plato’s idea that a moral person will be happy and an immoral person will be unhappy, regardless of how they are seen by the outside world. Because of this, I still believe that most people will still use the Ring of Gyges to act immorally for personal gain, but after using the ring for an extended period of time their conscience will slowly change the person from being happy to unhappy, and once this happens, the person will no longer be able to use the ring. A person’s morality will eventually overpower their desire to act immorally even though they chose to use the Ring of Gyges.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Will's argument above. The idea that a person's "entire mindset behind being moral is weighing one’s options before making a decision and making the most rational decision," is a self-serving concept and is not in the nature of morality. Socrates proves in chapter 2 of the Republic, that a moral person "wants a genuine goodness rather than merely an aura of goodness." By this statement, the "moral" person Will was referring to was in fact an immoral person. Earlier in the chapter, it was stated and agreed that one of the goals of immoral people is to be seen as moral, (so as to dodge the consequences of immorality and maintain that lifestyle.)
ReplyDeletePertaining to Will’s last statement, “being immoral with the Ring of Gyges is truly the correct rational decision;” although taking the money is rational in the sense that it will help temporarily solve a person’s monetary problems, it is not in the least bit rational. A person does not know where the money is coming from or who might come after them to obtain it. They are putting themselves in an unnecessarily dangerous position for a short-term comfort to their lives that is mute in comparison. That is irrational.
Not only are the uses of the money and ring immoral, but the American people have acknowledged and agreed that it was immoral and evil to an extent. A prime example of this would be through the creation of super heroes and villains. Superman, Spiderman, and Batman all have the means to take over America if not the world and rule it as they deem fit, but instead they battle immorality and the evils that manifest themselves in humans. Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker, “With great power, comes great responsibility;” not “ok use your power morally, but if I die and your aunt goes broke its ok to rob a couple banks.” In fact, the villain from the latest Spiderman movie, Sandman, uses Will’s rationale to justify his actions. His family is poor and his daughter is dying; because this is so, his “opportunistic-morality” allows him to destroy anything or anyone who stands in his way.
This statement that the only morality that people have disappears when the right opportunity to defy its nature is a false claim; it is not morality that the statement is describing. The true essence of morality is to choose to act morally; not to choose not to act immorally.