The Ring of Gyges

Recall…

The Protagoras Theory of Evil:

Evil is error. Evil comes from mistaking the worse for the better, and vice versa.

Some major problems:

1. Not all error or ignorance is evil.
2. Not all evil appears to involve error or ignorance.

Later on, Plato takes a different approach to arguing that evil is always irrational.

The Persons of the Dialogue:

Glaucon

Adeimantus

Plato's brothers, so this one is a bit personal.

Fundamental question. Why be Just?

1. Because it produces good results (like pull-ups)?
2. Because it's desirable for its own sake (like listening to music)?
3. Because it's both (like dancing)?

The challenge for Socrates

Prove that Justice is type 3, rather than type 1.

Glaucon goes first.

Contract theory of Justice

Justice is when we follow certain rules which we have implicitly agreed on because it's mutually advantageous for us to all to follow these rules.

Examples might be:

• don't steal
• don't kill.
• don't lie.

We follow these conventions because it's mutually advantageous.

Justice is fundamentally a compromise between

I do whatever I want! and YOU do whatever YOU want!

This theory has certain implications.

If the only reason to be just is to reap the benefits of social cooperation, then anyone who doesn't need those benefits has no reason to be just.

Gyges and the ring

A shepherd who acquires a ring of invisibility, which means he can commit crimes without being kicked out of the social contract.

He gets the benefits of justice, without needing to be just.

He kills the king, seduces the queen, conquers the kingdom.

Glaucon argues Gyges acted reasonably.

In fact, Glaucon suggests that most people think (secretly) that anyone who wouldn't act as Gyges did is “a most wretched idiot”.

(Previous) Class Survey:

About 5 groups: “Absolutely!”

About 16 groups: “I mean, personally, I wouldn't, but it could be rational to be evil, you know, if you really think about it.”

About 3 groups: “No, even under these circumstances, it wouldn't be irrational or foolish to be just.”

If Justice is something that we do only for the sake of mutual advantage, in a social contract, then it's clearly type 1, rather than type 3.

Glaucon's Thesis

Evil can be rational, good can be a mistake.

Evaluation

So, is this this theory true?

Some common objections

1. Maybe with a ring, but in real life you'll get caught!

2. If you are unjust, God will punish you, after you die.

3. Your Conscience will punish you.

In real life you'll get caught!

This view (that things work out in the end, that evil deeds are caught and punished) is sometimes called the Just World Hypothesis

Some psychologists think that in many cases, we have a predisposition to think the world is just.

Under the guise of an experiment on the perception of emotional cues, undergraduate female Ss observed a peer (victim) participating in a paired-associate learning task. The victim, as a result of making the usual errors, appeared to receive severe and painful electric shocks (negative reinforcement).

In describing the suffering victim after these observations, Ss rejected and devalued her when they believed that they would continue to see her suffer in a 2nd session, and when they were powerless to alter the victim's fate… These results offer support for the hypothesis that rejection and devaluation of a suffering victim are primarily based on the observer's need to believe in a just world. Lerner & Simmons, Observer's Reaction to the “Innocent Victim”

So, maybe we shouldn't assume the world is just.

And there are definitely counterexamples.

If you are unjust, God will punish you, after you die.

This probably involves rejecting the contract theory of justice. Why would God care about rules we make?

Adeimantus' reply:

What if there are no gods? or, suppose them to have no care of human things… And even if there are gods, and they do care about us, yet we know of them only from tradition and the genealogies of the poets; and these are the very persons who say that they may be influenced and turned by ‘sacrifices and soothing entreaties and by offerings.’

Even if you don't buy that: this objection doesn't challenge the fundamental point.

An invisibility ring is imaginary.

Since we're imagining, how about a magic ring that hides you from the gods?

Then would evil be rational?

If so, then even if there isn't any actually such ring, Justice is still a type 1 thing, not a type 3 thing.

Your Conscience will punish you.

What about another magic ring?

This one

1. Makes you invisible
2. Hides you from the gods
3. Makes you a remorseless psychopath

Put it on?

Why not?

Maybe you feel a moment of emotional distress from before you put it on.

But from there on, it's smooth sailing.

Lifetime of guilt-free power and enjoyment!

Two versions of the conscience objection

Version 1: Guilt is unpleasant.

This version buys into the assumption that all rational motivation needs ultimately to be self-interested.

Even moral reasons are ultimately explained in terms of what morality does for me.

Small digression: where does this assumption come from?

You might blame the economists.

Homo Economicus

… an approximation or model of Homo sapiens that acts to obtain the highest possible well-being for him or herself given available information about opportunities and other constraints. This approach has been formalized in certain social sciences models, particularly in economics. Wikipedia

Definitely vulnerable to the psychopath ring.

Version 2: I care about other people.

Even if the ring made me stop caring, I wouldn't be getting what I want.

I don't care about the feeling of guilt, I care about the cause of my guilt

Example

An amazing new happiness drug!

Works by massively altering your mind, so that you're delighted to eat dog kibble and live in a kennel.

You care about having a good, dignified life, not just feeling like you have a good, dignified life.

Plato's Reply

A version of the second conscience reply.

Here's something you probably care about:

The health of your ψυχή (psyche/soul).

And, when we look inside the soul, is the part of ourselves that has an interest in doing evil the part that we want to identify ourselves with?

A question for next time.