The example of the ring of Gyges that is raised by Glaucon at 359d-360d introduces a hypothetical scenario in which an individual could commit any act just or unjust with complete impunity. Glaucon’s purpose in bringing the subject up is to illustrate the idea that people will generally refrain from committing acts of injustice due to a fear of punishment and because they lack the power to act unjustly without falling foul of societal retribution. Injustice, according to this argument, is always more profitable than justice and a failure to capitalize on the freedom granted by the ring would be viewed as “wretched and stupid by everyone aware of the situation”[1]. This essay shall therefore examine the basis of Glaucon’s argument and attempt to answer the question of what I myself think I might do should I come across some way in which I could act with complete impunity.
First of all I’ll take a look at the argument advanced by Glaucon, the premises seem reasonably straightforward.
P1: Human nature is to outdo others and gain more[2]
P2: People are too weak to commit acts of injustice without punishment
P3: Punishment for unjust acts outweighs the benefit that may be gained through them
C1: Justice arises from a fear of punishment and an inability to avoid said punishment.
and
C2: Should the threat of punishment be removed, human nature will compel an individual to commit unjust acts.
As we can see Glaucon’s argument works very well in regards to the ring of Gyges since it gives an individual the power to act unjustly, that is, it removes the threat of punishment. Possible objections here could centre on human nature as being fundamentally exploitative and greedy and indeed there is plenty of evidence to suggest that human beings are gregarious and cooperative by nature but I don’t particularly want to turn this essay into a rambling tract on the alleged virtues and vices of humanity. We could also introduce the idea of retribution as a metaphysical concept, that is to say, what if punishment awaits us in an afterlife not just at the hands of other people? Adeimantus goes on to circumvent just such an objection at 364a onwards, explaining that the gods can be appeased by offerings and sacrifices so that, in theory, injustice can go unpunished by both man and god. In short unless we state that human nature is as good as to keep to acting justly despite having the chance to act unjustly, or that God, gods or omnipotent dolphins will exact due retribution upon a transgressor, what else is there to say that human beings won’t act like money grabbing, exploitative, rapacious wretches given half the chance?
Where I come into all this is reasoning how I might use the ring of Gyges should I somehow get hold of it and as with most hypothetical scenarios it is all very well and good for me to take a pious stance and state to a disbelieving world that I’d be so very good and honest in such a case. Equally I could say that I would revert to being an amoral sociopath who stole, raped, murdered, and slandered with complete abandon but I don’t feel as if arguing on either count is all that constructive; hypothetical situations are not real and I often think that people who say one thing would act very differently if the reality were to hit home. What I should like to concentrate on is what might prevent me from acting in accordance to Glaucon’s conception of human nature, it isn’t enough to simply say that I’m so squeaky clean I wouldn’t act unjustly.
In responding I’d like to examine Socrates’ claim that justice is that kind of good which is not only good for gaining honor and reputation but also good in and by itself. What I suspect Socrates may mean by this is that justice is good for the soul even if it doesn’t lead to anything more substantially profitable. Glaucon’s example at 361e of a man who was just and yet believed to be unjust and who suffered all manner of tortures and punishments as a result, speculates that in such a case the individual would realize it wasn’t enough to be just, you need to be believed to be just too. This is all very well and good from a third party stance but what about the individual himself? He could believe he was just indeed he would know himself to be just and presumably the fact that he was being so brutally punished would suggest that he was living in an unjust or particularly stupid world. If the individual himself believes himself to be good and just then is that not enough? The matter comes down to something approaching personal integrity and we can call that what we like: soul, spirit, zen, honor, whatever. The important matter is how it acts upon the individual and what import it has to him or her.
If I suddenly find I can act unjustly with complete impunity then it is fair to say I might succumb to using Gyges’ ring to exact a little retributive justice onto certain individuals who’ve wound me up in the past, it’s fair to say I’d probably want to go and burn my old school down, and there’s a few dogs in and around the Liphook and Petersfield area who’d find themselves on the receiving end of a swift kicking from a certain, invisible and disgruntled ex-postman but here’s the caveat; could I live with myself?
That I think, is the most important point in this discussion, could I look myself in the mirror and make eye contact with myself[3]? Could I justify to myself that I was doing the right thing in torching a building that no matter how much damage it once did to me employed and educated people? Could I live with myself knowing that I was so bitter I went after people who had once got on the wrong side of me and that not only was I bitter but I was a coward for going after them when I was beyond their reach? Could I sleep at night knowing I was malicious enough to do damage and do injury to a stupid, dumb animal that didn’t know any better?
Suspicion is I’d die inside as soon as I started to abuse the power I had, suspicion is I’d find my personal integrity went quite literally to the dogs and I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night, no matter how much money or power or how many beautiful women I secured for myself. The Socratic notion that a good man cannot be harmed by a bad one does not necessarily have to rely on the existence of a soul though I am sure that this would be part of Socrates’ objection to acting in an unjust manner despite the ability to do so.
The above is a slight messy apology for my own sense of outraged morality so I should like to try analyzing my argument in a more professional manner. The main point I believe does not get adequately discussed in Glaucon’s exposition on injustice is the matter of what we believe ourselves to be and what others believe us to be. We see that at 360d with the individual who acts justly despite his ability to act unjustly without fear of retribution and again at 361e with the individual who acts justly but is believed to be unjust, the matter is considered only in light of what other people believe not what the individual himself believes.
My argument progresses along the following lines.
P1: I believe myself to be a good (if not considerably flawed) individual
P2: This belief keeps me together as a person (that is it helps me sleep at night and keep my head held up) let us say my belief that I am a good person is integral to my self-respect.
P3: Acts of injustice, even those that go unpunished, undermine my belief that I am a good person.
C3: Acts of injustice, even those that go unpunished undermine my self-respect, in effect they undermine and threaten my integrity as a whole.
Consider the perspective of either 360d and 361e in light of this
P1: My belief that I am a good person is more important to me than what others think
P2: Being thought to be a bleeding heart fool would not undermine my self-respect
P3: Being falsely accused of being unjust and wicked would hurt me but not undermine my self-respect
P4: It is not what others think of me but my integrity/self-respect that provides the fundamental support for me as a person.
C4: It is therefore more important for me to guard my sense of integrity than it is for me to have others think well of me.
Naturally one hopes that one’s sense of integrity would act in accordance with having people think well of you, if the two coincide that’s all to the good, but even the best of us will find these principles come into conflict at times. In such cases it is more important to be able to look at yourself in the mirror without feeling contempt and to be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience, even if that clear conscience costs you money, company, lovers, or power.
A brief conclusion then, I hope I’ve answered the question of what I’d do with the ring of Gyges and that is I’d be sorely tempted to use it unjustly, the odd thing is all the examples I raised were attempts at some form of personal justice, to pay people, places, and unfortunate dogs back in kind. Nonetheless I have a strong suspicion that to act in such a manner would be like a cancer that ate away at my heart and would sound the death knell for my sense of integrity; as such I like to think my intention would be as Frodo’s was to cast the damnable thing into the hottest fire I could find.*
*Whether or not I’d need the extra push he does or not is quite up for discussion.
