The Ring Of Gyges, Comparison Of Views Of Socrates And Glaucon (Essay Sample)

Name:
Professor:
Title:
Date:
The Ring of Gyges
The story is about Glaucon who tries to encourage Socrates to give a better description of justice. He tries to demonstrate a thought experiment that people only act in a just manner because they are worried about their reputation. Glaucon describes how once a man found a ring and when he turned to look at a certain direction it became invisible. The man then acted unjustly every time as he considered that it was a way of getting ahead. He could also do whatever he wanted, as no one would find out what he was upto. Glaucon reiterates that even if there were two rings and they came into possession of one person who was just and another unjust, the just person would end up acting unjustly too ( Pojman 32). In this paper, I will describe Socrates argument for justice and defend the same as he says that justice can make one happier hence, the story of ring invisibility is just temporary.
Socrates’ Virtues
The debate in the ‘Ring of Gyges’ is centered on the individual and the nature of their character. Socrates and Glaucon understand human nature differently. Glaucon asserts that human nature has a preference for being unjust so that there is greater personal benefit. The constraint of one leaning towards evil is malice from other people as one annuls the benefit of the other. Socrates however, makes an assumption that qualities of character are the features of the good hence justice is preferable. This means that a person who is virtuous will always be pursuant of justice. Justice should therefore be understood personally and in a separate way regardless of what a community considers to be just (Greenwood 830). Socrates feels that just may be looked at as being unjust because the society has different criteria for determining what is just or unjust.
Socrates also feels that the social build cannot be essentially a real expression of the type of justice but may most likely deviate from it. Glaucon however sees the social build as all that is there and he focuses on the character of a person. He sees justice as a social build by making a presumption that human beings are naturally bad. This presumption seems rather uncertain as it is directly opposite to the thinking of Socrates (Pojman 43). The suggestion that a human being is bad can be similarly true to the suggestion that a human being is good, both bad and good or is neither good nor bad. This is because the subject matter cannot really be determined by ethics alone.
Socrates and Glaucon both have individualistic views of ethics and this lies on the indeterminacy of the nature of human beings. Their views do not reach a foundation that is definitive. The propositions are not strong to ambiguity, uncertainty and conflict of facets of reality, which may be different from one another.
Socrates also claims that one justly, it has its own reward as it assists in keeping the soul in balance. Even if people get away with acts that are immoral and lack to face external punishments, they still have to live with their own feelings concerning their actions. This is true, as most people do not have an instinct of what is right or wrong and this makes up the conscience (Greenwood 840). The contents of one’s conscience sometimes result from the culture that a person has grown up in.
Socrates disagrees with Glaucon and says that the man who abuses the power of the ‘Ring of Gyges’ has been enslaved to his own appetites and the man who chooses not to make use of it remains in control of himself and therefore remains a happy person. Each person has to perform roles, which they are naturally suited to without meddling in the business of other people.
Socrates adds that when there is injustice in a soul, collective achievement is not possible. Injustice is viewed as bringing conflict to people. Collective achievement must be done in the presence of justice (352). According to Socrates, the just man is happier than the one who is not just. This person is better off as the happiness may apply to his way of living too.
Socrates also points out there is an assumption of there being justice of one person and that of a whole city. If justice has a nature, which is true, and stable it will appear in the same form in each case where it is available. Justice can therefore be looked at in the city and then in the individual. If the contents needed for a just society are identified then it will be easier to look at what comprises justice in a human soul.
Should the Ring be Used or not?
The arguments brought forth by Socrates make sense and therefore the ring should not be used. Using the ring is an indication that everyone leans towards being adjust and yet this is not the case. The presence of institutions provides evidence of people who do whatever has been described as the right thing regardless of their individual propensity to do good or bad. The ring cannot apply to this case as people follow what is deemed to be right by various institutions that influence them.
Socrates views also leads us to question how sometimes our soul can be thrown off balance such that unjust practices are carried out. It seems that it comes from evolution. There is a sense of right and wrong and punishment among all social animals that have brains which are complex. Our morality can therefore be traced to biological ancestry.
Socrates views make a lot of sense in the world that we live in today. People are conscious about their behavior and they generally tend to think about what they have done even if they were not punished for a mistake. People who tend to lean towards always doing the right things are happier than those who constantly do wrong. An example is that of a pickpocket who gets caught and put ...