Cite Entry
September 9 2024
06:33 EDT
Plato
SITE SEARCH ENGINE
|
Introduction to Philosophy
Plato, "The Myth of the Ring of Gyges"
Abstract: Plato sets up a case for egoism: If
anyone had a magic ring making him invisible, whether or not that person
were just or unjust, he would always act selfishly since he could do almost
anything he wanted without fear of punishment.
- According to the Glaucon's brief, why do
most persons act justly? Explain whether you think Glaucon's
explanation is psychologically correct.
- If a person could be certain not only that
an action resulting in personal benefit would not be discovered
but also that if this action were discovered, no punishing
consequences would follow, then would there any reason for that person to act morally?
- Is it true that sometimes our self-interest
is served by not acting in our self-interest? Fyodor Dostoevsky
writes: "Advantage! What is advantage? And will you take
it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what
the advantage of a man consists? And what if it so happens
that a man's advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even
must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful
to himself and not advantageous" (Fyodor Dostoevsky,
Notes from Underground, trans. Constance Garnett,
1864). Construct an example illustrating this view, and attempt
to resolve the paradoxical expression of the question.
- Quite often people are pleased when they can
help others. Analyze whether this fact is sufficient to prove
that the motive for helping others is ultimately one of pleasure
or of self-interest.
- According to Glaucon, how does the practice of
justice arise? On the view he expresses, would there be any
reason prior to living in a society to do the right thing?
Does the practice of ethics only make sense in the context
of living in a society?
- Plato (427-347 BC) puts forth a strong case for egoism so
that he can, in a later chapter of The Republic, have
Socrates demonstrate the shortcomings of this theory.
- Several related points help provide a context for his
argument.
- In Plato's best known dialogue The
Republic, Socrates constructs an ideal
government in his attempt to define justice.
- In Book I of that work, Socrates opposes the sophist Thrasymachus's
view that justice is that which is in the interest of
the stronger agency. Thrasymachus holds, in effect, that
the person who acts "unjustly" (in this sense,
to one's own advantage) is normally happier than the just
person. (Thrasymachus, to some extent, anticipates Niccolo
Machiavelli's notion of "might makes right"
and Friedrich Nietzsche's notion of
"slave morality" as a societal construction.)
- In our reading, Plato turns his attention to Glaucon's
view that persons are, at heart, selfish, or, at least,
egoistic. (Historically, Glaucon is Plato's older brother.)
- Glaucon's argument is used as a stalking horse for Socrates
to explain in a later part of The Republic that justice
in the individual person can be understood by examining
justice in an ideal state.
- For both Socrates and Plato, right action is neither
that action which seeks to avoid punishment nor is that action
resulting from a social agreement, law, or contract. (However,
this outcome is not part of the
reading selection of the myth of the ring of Gyges.)
- Important terms used in discussion of this reading include:
- Psychological egoism is the empirical doctrine that the
determining motive of every voluntary action is a desire for
one's own welfare.
- Ethical egoism is the normative or prescriptive doctrine
that each individual should seek, as an end, only that individual's
own welfare.
- Altruism is the ethical doctrine that each individual should
place the interest of others before that individual's own
interest. An action is right if it benefits others.
- Social contract is the political or societal doctrine that
individual morality is dependent upon a tacit or an actual
agreement with other persons in a society.
- Selfishness is a doctrine of self-interest without regard
for others. Self-interest, however, need not be incompatible with the
interests of others.
- Ethical relativism is simply the denial of ethical absolutism.
More precisely, ethical relativism denies that there is a single
moral standard, which applies to all people, all times, and
all places.
- Focus Questions for Plato's "Myth of the Ring of Gyges"
- Notes are arranged in response to the questions stated above in
reference to chapter "The
Ring of Gyges" from Plato's Republic, translated
by Benjamin Jowlett, Book II, 358—361d in Reading for
Philosophical Inquiry as well as many other introductory
philosophy texts.
- According to the Glaucon's brief, why do most
persons act justly? Explain whether you think Glaucon's explanation
is psychologically correct.
- Glaucon says that if you look at what people really are,
then you will see that they believe to do wrong is desirable
and to suffer wrong is undesirable.
- Since we do not want to suffer wrong, we compromise with
others and form a compact (a social contract) not to harm
each other. These agreements are the origination of justice
in society.
- On the one hand, William A. Rottschaefer in The Biology
and Psychology of Moral Agency argues there is much good
evidence that moral interaction among
human beings is due to natural selection, especially the
capacity of empathy.
- E.g., see the Science article discussed
"New Pain Research Shows Mice Capable Of
Empathy" where Dr. Jeffrey Mogil of McGill University
concludes co-housed mice show pain sensitivity not shown
individually.
- Or see the discussion Morals,
Apes, and Us by Marc D. Hauser on empathy and
altruism among rhesus monkeys from Discover
(February 2000) Vol. 21 No. 2.
- On the other hand, Stuart Kauffman in At Home in the
Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and
Complexity argues that moral
interaction among human beings is simply part of the emergent
order of the dynamics of self-organizations of living
things.
- Neither the story of the myth nor the amassing of scientific
evidence is relevant to the question of what ought
to be done. Stories and scientific evidence are relevant to
what is actual behavior.
- If a person could be certain not only that an
action resulting in personal benefit would not be discovered
but also that if this action were discovered, no punishing
consequences would follow, then would there any reason for
that person to act morally?
- Glaucon thinks not. He proposes a mind-experiment: the
myth of the magic
ring of Gyges. (Note how any effectiveness of his argument
is actually an ad populum
fallacy.)
- Glaucon argues that if someone had a ring which made him
invisible, then that person would be foolish not to use
it for personal advantage. Hence, Glaucon is arguing for
ethical egoism.
- He states whether one were just or unjust, with
such a ring, that person could do almost anything
he wanted without fear of being caught.
- Both the unjust and the just person would use its
magic powers because one would be a fool not to do
what personally pays him much better.
- If there were no fear of punishment, then Glaucon believes
everyone, the virtuous and non virtuous alike, would no
longer act morally. He thinks it is fear of punishment alone
which is the basis of morality.
- Socrates, of course, would disagree. As expressed in the
Socratic Paradox, he
argues that you should only do what's right—irrespective
of matters of life or death. This is part of the meaning
of "tending your soul"
- Is it true that sometimes our self-interest
is served by not acting in our self-interest? Fyodor Dostoevsky
writes: "Advantage! What is advantage? And will you take
it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what
the advantage of a man consists? And what if it so happens
that a man's advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even
must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful
to himself and not advantageous" (Fyodor Dostoevsky,
Notes from Underground, trans. Constance Garnett,
1864). Construct an example illustrating this view, and attempt
to resolve the paradoxical expression of the question.
- If I am an ethical egoist, then it is in my interest not
to tell others. I.e., it is not in my own interest to
tell others I act from self-interest. (Many persons avoid
or try to get even with selfish people; avarice tends to
breed avarice.)
- The rational egoist, then, cannot advocate that egoism
be universally adopted precisely because that would not be an
action in his self-interest.
- To say that an action is right is to say that the action is right
for anyone in that position. But the egoist cannot want
others to act as he does because such an action is not in his
self-interest.
- Hence, ethical egoism cannot be an ethical theory because
any theory must be universalizable, or it does not qualify as
a theory.
- Quite often people are pleased when they can
help others. Analyze whether this fact is sufficient to prove
that the motive for helping others is ultimately one of
pleasure or of self-interest.
- As Aristotle observed in
the Nichomachean
Ethics, pleasure is a side-product (or natural accompaniment)
of activity. In modern terms, this realization is part of the "hedonistic
paradox": "Pleasure to be got, must be forgot."
- Persons do not seek pleasure—they seek those actions
which are most likely to result in pleasure.
- When hungry, one seeks food, not pleasure.
- When bored, one seeks activity, not pleasure.
- Thus, the object of the desire to help others need
not be pleasure per se. We can distinguish between
"selfishness" and "non-selfishness" by
looking at the object of the want in the action of an
individual.
- Likewise, there are many possible motives for helping
others—not all of which are selfishness or pleasure.
- If one helps others for some "pay off" of
doing so, then that action could be considered selfish or
self-interested. If I want something solely for myself,
the action might be selfish. If I want something for
someone else, then even if I derive pleasure from doing
so, the act need not be considered selfish.
- After all, as James Rachels
writes, isn't the unselfish person precisely the one
who derives satisfaction from helping others? The selfish
person is the one who helps grudgingly.
- However, if one help others for the sake of helping
others, even though there is a "pay off" as
a side-product, then that action could be considered
nonselfish, nonself-interested, and perhaps
altruistic.
- Thus, obtaining pleasure when helping others need not
be considered egoistic.
- Other exceptions to the supposition that all persons
act selfishly include the following types of actions.
- Sometimes people ordinarily do what they do not
what to do. Sometimes persons act from spite or in
self-defeating ways.
- Many actions considered apart from their long-term end are
prima facie might not be in short-term interest:
attending a boring college class, working a dull job,
going to the dentist, exercising, and so forth.
- Actions which are a result of an obligation might
not be in our self-interest: keeping the promise to
give money to the needy, studying for a set period
of time, staying in good health, and so forth.
- According to Glaucon, how does the practice of
justice arise? On the view he expresses, would there be any
reason prior to living in a society to do the right thing?
Does the practice of ethics only make sense in the context
of living in a society?
- Glaucon believes human beings practice justice in order
to avoid the harm that would come to them if they disobeyed
the laws of the society.
- Thus, he thinks, it is in our self-interest to obey the
law because we fear the consequences if we were to get
caught disobeying the law.
- Glaucon's account is in accordance with the cluster of
ethical theories such as psychological and ethical egoism,
psychological and ethical hedonism, and ethical
relativism.
- Essentially, he believes all persons are selfish,
self-interested, and egoistic.
- According to the implications Glaucon's view, ethics, since
it is based on a social contract, is possible only in a
society. Essentially, Glaucon is supporting the 17th century view expressed
in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) where Hobbes describes
the state of nature as the war of all against all. Prior to
government the normal state of affairs is everyone for himself as
each person must defend himself as best he can.
- Hobbes' state of nature where “nature is red in tooth and
claw“and Glaucon's state of nature where ethics is lacking
is a view opposed by Thomas Aquinas, Richard Hooker,
and John Locke who argue that moral duties as well as moral rights
are instances of natural laws—hence intrinsic and prior to social
contract and human law. Moreover, for Locke the following rights
and duties are not initially created by society but exist prior to
the development of government: “life, liberty, and estate.”
- It is important to note that Plato is not himself arguing for
ethical or psychological egoism. Plato is using Glaucon's account
for a challenge for his Socrates to overcome later in the Republic.
Further Reading:
“That Justice is useful to society, and consequently
that part of its merit, at least, must arise from that
consideration, it would be a superfluous undertaking to prove.
That public utility is the sole origin of justice,
and that reflections on the beneficial consequences of
this virtue are the sole foundations of its merit;
this proposition, being more curious and important,
will better deserve our examination and enquiry.”
David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding,
ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 183.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page last updated 12/20/09
© 2006 Licensed under the GFDL
|