Phil. as in Philosophy, my almost minor.
The Ring of Gyges:
The Ring of Gyges is the story about a Shepherd who finds a
magical ring that makes him invisible. He uses the ring
to seduce the queen, kill the king, and take over the kingdom.
Glaucon's argument seems heavily focused on the immediate consequences of an action. His example of the just and unjust man (unjust is loved by all and given all the rewards of being just while the just man is hated by all and suffers as if he was unjust) proves this because it relies entirely on the idea that because the unjust man is happier now, he will always be happier. Though, even in a situation where he is always happier, he may not know he will always be happier. Also it is suggested in later works that Plato's definition of a happy life is one of contentment and mediocrity.
This is suggested when he is talking about the perfect city as one where people are at a level, but they never move higher or lower. They just serve a single purpose that they are best at. So, if the two lives were graphed, with the just mean experiencing low highs and lows, while the unjust man has extreme highs and lows, then maybe Plato would argue their experiences were equal or even that the just man has a better life because he did even though he did not experience as high-highs, he also doesn't experience the dramatic shift to the low-lows.
Though, this could be argued, another question comes up for me regarding Glaucon's argument of things valued. Does something necessarily have to make someone's life better to be valued? Does someone's life being happier necessarily mean it is better? If someone smokes, they might be happier in the moment, but does it make their life better?
Glaucon's argument about the two men seems to rest on the idea that just living is better only if the man is happier than an unjust man. Is it not possible for the just man to still have a better life even if he is not happier? And even if he does, does that really mean being just isn't of value?
Someone might cheat to get ahead and beat all the other players in a game, but does that mean they will benefit in the long run?
In Glaucon's discussion of the Ring he doesn't take into account what could happen. Just because the Shepherd killed the King and tool over the kingdom doesn't mean he will always get away with it. Claudius killed the King, married the Queen, and took over Denmark in Hamlet and for awhile he got away with it, but in the end he loses everything. And because he had so much he more to lose. So who's to say the shepherd isn't going to eventually get caught?
I also disagree with his point that if someone were to turn it (the ring) down people would mock them for it behind their back. But since a lot of people assume that they could be just even with the ring, why would they mock someone for turning it down? When in mocking them they are doing it because they turned down the opportunity to be unjust.
No comments:
Post a Comment