A ring with supernatural abilities imbues its beholder with power. But there are no hobbits, dwarves or valkyries in this story.
In fact, the legend of the Ring of Gyges appeared long before these characters were committed to paper: 2,000 years ago, in the "Republic" of the Greek philosopher Plato.
The story unfolds as the philosopher, Socrates, and his student, Glaucon, discuss why people act justly.
Is it because it's right?
Or because it is a convention enforced by punishment and punishment?
Playing devil's advocate,
Glaucon argues against Socrates and tells the following story... Long ago, a shepherd named Geiges was tending his flock when an earthquake struck, causing him to dig a hole. Blown to the ground.
Khai pulled Gage in. There, his eyes fell on the bronze horse, the doors to his main chamber open. Peeking inside, Gages discovers the corpse of a giant.
On her finger, a golden ring, which Gages pocketed before retracing his steps. Later, he sat among the other shepherds, fiddling with the mysterious ring when, suddenly, absentmindedly turning his stone, he became invisible.
When he turned the stone in the opposite direction, it reappeared. Encouraged by the ring's powers, new possibilities open before him, and a dastardly plan forms in his mind.
Gages becomes a messenger to the king of Lydia,
and, inside the palace, uses the ring to escape detection. He seduced the queen and made her cheat on her husband.
And soon Gages, once a humble shepherd, killed the king and claimed the kingdom. Glaucon tells this story to illustrate how people can seemingly benefit by acting unjustly.
After all, wouldn't any sane person act like Gages if given the chance to get what he wanted without consequence? Exploring this argument, Glaucon divides all good things into three classes.
The first types, we want for their own sake,
like the experience of harmless pleasure. Second, we want them simply for the value they bring, even though they may be as difficult as labor or medicine.
The third category includes things we want for their own sake and the value they offer, such as knowledge and health.
Glaucon argues that justice belongs to another class of good:
it is a burden that nevertheless brings rewards. The only reason anyone behaves virtuously, he explains, is because of external influences. So it's appearing—not actually being—goodness that matters.
Socrates, as Plato wrote, argues that justice belongs to the third class of good, offering both external and internal benefits. Socrates says that the human soul has three parts: intellect, spirit and appetite.
Intellect guides an individual to truth and knowledge, and is inspired by spirit or appetite. The spirit is the source of righteous, ambitious, and courageous action, while appetite consists of baser, carnal desires.
According to Socrates, philosophers are guided by reason, and their soul controls their appetites, making them the most just and happy.
Even without the consequences of self-serving wrongdoings,
they will not commit them. Meanwhile, the tyrant starves and commits injustice.
So, while Gaius may have power and wealth, Socrates implies that his soul will be in disorder. Instead of being guided by reason, he will become a slave to his base desires and will not be truly happy.
Before Plato recorded this argument, the Chinese philosopher Confucius similarly argued that even acting justly had its own benefits. Subsequently, modern Western philosophers expressed different beliefs.
For example, Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature is violent and selfish. Therefore, justice is enforced by authority.
In contrast, John Locke asserted that people are naturally bound to act justly and are willing to participate in civil society to protect their natural rights.
An allegory of an ill-gotten magic ring that lures its wearers to their darkest desires. So what do you do if you get a ring of gauges?
Comments
Post a Comment