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 too unrealistic? Must morality and virtue be its own reward, without any external benefits, to answer Glaucon's challenge? Are other reasons to act morally that don't provide a reason to eschew Gyges' ring just as valid (recall Socrates discussion in the last chapter of The Republic)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, that is crazily unrealistic, as we can tell, and it never actually reflects human society. Realistically, external pressures from community would bar an individual from ever carrying that state of mind out.
ReplyDeleteBut even if you ignore that, one other compelling reason to act morally has to do with human nature, in my opinion. Oftentimes, people don't particularly feel good acting immorally, so abusing power with the ring of Gyges can be counterproductive to happiness. For example, I very well can bash your face in with a bottle and take your wallet, but EVEN IF I was hidden under the Ring of Gyges, or KNEW that I would get away with my actions because I, like, bribed the police or something, I'm pretty sure I would feel bad doing that to anybody. That is an independent motivation to act morally. Plato sort of talks about this kind of reasoning, but frames it more in terms of true pleasures and rationality, rather than gut feelings.
Of course the analogy is ridiculous, but it does serve a purpose by focusing on the intrinsic value of morality. While I think Omar makes a good point about immediate unhappiness by assaulting somebody, on the whole wouldn't that pang of guilt be outweighed by in that instance the money you received and in a larger sense the ability to get what you want? I would in general go beyond human nature in arguments like this, because I think so much of the human nature you describe is focused around the disincentives to act immorally. I mean, are you really unhappy that you hit me with a bottle, or are you unhappy that there may be consequences as a result?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I think it is reasonable that Plato be required to answer this question. Plato’s purpose in writing the Republic is largely to address this question and show why it is good to be moral for morality’s sake. Regardless of the wording of Glaucon’s challenge it is crucial that Plato defend morality without resorting to indirect justification. In order for Plato to be successful he must convincingly prove that morality is a direct advantage to a moral individual.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it can be solidly argued that an individual should be moral for morality’s sake. I tend to agree with Glaucon’s challenge and Thrasymachus’s argument from early in the republic. (I do not think that Plato gives a sufficient rebuttal for these arguments) Excluding personal advantages that result from morality there is no reason for an individual to be moral.
However, morality is an essential tool for a community. In addition to Plato’s arguments, I would add that morality allows a community to function more smoothly. In a perfectly moral community pacts can be made without fear of deception and a community will operate at optimum efficiency.
To me the analogy doesn't seem too ridiculous because it does illustrate the premise perfectly. Why be moral for morality's sake? It only serves as an example of what Socrates must go about proving to be false.
ReplyDeleteI do think that, in order for a person with the ring to act morally, the person must do so for the intrinsic reason of morality because otherwise, he or she would just continue to act as he or she pleases.
The other reason to act moral that was given in the last chapter, the one of futures based on past deeds, also isn't enough to prove one should be moral. Socrates claims that after death it is said that the Gods punish the immoral and reward the moral, but he is quick to poke a hole in this logic. He uses the example of soothsayers who wander door to door claiming to be capable of relieving people of their sins in exchange for money. Thus, one can gain favor with the Gods without ever having been moral.
The only way for Socrates to show that someone with the ring should act morally is to show the intrinsic benefits of doing so.
I would like to elaborate on the point I made earlier, namely that morality is essential within a community. Plato is certainly in agreement with this claim. For much of the Republic he uses the community as a model for demonstrating why morality is essential for an individual (a claim which I disagree with because I do not think that an individual and a community are equivalent). Before I begin explaining why morality is essential for a community it is important to state what the goal of a community is. The goal of a community is to fulfill the needs of its members. This implies that efficiency of a community is essential so that the largest number of needs can be met.
ReplyDeleteIn order for a community to reach optimum efficiency it must be moral. As Plato argues, in a moral community every person performs a job to which they are suited. An individual cannot enter into an occupation that he is not suited for because they will lower the efficiency of the system, meaning that the needs of some individual will not be met. Morality is essential to efficiency because it allows contracts to be created without fear of deception and without the creation of nonessential businesses (i.e. businesses that do not meet a direct need, insurance) Both of these problems prevent a community from operating at optimum efficiency. An immoral group cannot even qualify as a community because they fail to fulfill the definition of a community because they do not more completely meet the needs of its members.
There is no way somebody could appear moral and do immoral things (even with the Ring of Gyges) and be able to maintain doing that. To even appear moral, one must have some level of morality in them. As Socrates says in the last chapter, being moral is being good and to be immoral is to be destructive on one level or another. Therefore, if one consistently is immoral, even with being invisible, they will eventually show their true colors through their destructive nature of being immoral. Going back to inner morality, if someone is immoral but appears to be moral, they know personally that they have done wrong and eventually that will catch up to them and reveal itself in some manner. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the Ring of Gyges is only effective if the person wears it for the rest of their lives, which would not be a great situation to be in, because (depending on the level of immorality) they might not be able to show their faces ever again.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of the Ring of Gyges scenario is to create this situation where you can be immoral but appear to be moral. So yes Gavin, in a realistic world, your immoral actions would most likely reveal themselves, but in this unrealistic situation that Plato's brother set up, they don't. So the question remains, is it enough to be moral for morality's sake. Although i do believe in Nate's point about how, realistically, morality has a great deal of importance in a ideal society, but I would rather focus on the intrinsic values. If a man came across the Ring of Gyges, he would obviously be drawn to use it. Human's, by nature, are greedy. A similar, more realistic situation would be the one in "A simple plan". If there wasn't the complication of being caught, would you keep the money? It would make life a hell of a lot easier, but could you sleep at night? Could you live with yourself knowing that you cheated your way to success? If what you were doing under the protection of the Ring of Gyges was truly immoral then you could not be happy. Your actions would haunt you. Although the Ring of Gyges protects you from you seeming immoral to the outside world, it can not protect how you see yourself. If, however, you convince yourself that what you are doing is not immoral, then I would argue that is no longer immoral, for a true immoral act can not be determined moral in any way.
ReplyDelete