Plato's 'Ring Of Gyges'

How does one characterize good and evil? Throughout time, people have asked this question and only received opinions based on references from

It is a very arguable subject on whether or not people are born with good intentions, and therefore taught by others the ‘evil’ side of their personality. Whether it is the absence of ethical conduct in human nature, or just the way one perceives a situation, evil seems to be prominent in our everyday lives. Humans seem to have a moral code that follows them with every decision they make, yet despite the laws of morality and society, people of this world still seem to behave inhumanely because of the act of self-preservation, human interest, and who exactly the authority figure is at the time.

THEME: The line between good and evil is sometimes unclear, and as a result, people often think that they are doing the right thing when it is actually the wrong action, and vice versa.

Humans should balance and understand the difference between good and evil. Good and evil are the superficial ideas that permeate society in many ways. However, one does not get to do in depth analysis so as to encounter such in lifestyle. As an example, at this point the planet is at the verge of a war. Humans have completely different views and perceptions of the implications such events would bring around the planet. There has always been an unending struggle of deciding between good and evil. As humans, we have a tendency to do not understand or notice a balance between them so as to achieve a positive outcome.

Just as light can create a shadow, the good of human beings can also bring about evil. Human beings are complex in a way that a man labeled as good can be labeled as bad by someone else. The definition of good and evil can have multiple amounts of interpretations. In general, good can be defined by moral actions and integrity while evil can be defined as being wicked and selfish. The various ways in which people think often tends to cause conflict for simple matters.

Plato’s Ring of Gyges, which is similar to the idea behind J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, focuses on the character Glaucon who questions Socrates on, “what is justice?” The story from Plato’s Republic, Glaucon suggests that morality is a social construct, while Socrates ultimately argues the opposite. The excerpt offers many different ideas of the individual consequences that could come from acting unjust, through magical rings. The rings, which came from Gyges the shepherd and were created by something marvelous, has the opportunity to act unjust without anyone knowing. Which brings up the question, why should someone avoid immoral outcomes if there is no chance that they will be discovered?

Punishment is a type of consequence that decreases the probability of certain actions or behaviors from happening out of an aversive stimulus. An aversive stimulus is a negative stimulus that suppresses the negative behavior and increases the positive behavior a person should follow to avoid or escape it. Philosopher Plato’s “The Ring of Gyges” presents the concept of a ring or power that allows one to avoid any consequences by maintaining their secrecy, self-guarding from authorities and total evasion of any wrongdoings. Internet users do not wear the “Ring of Gyges” because he or she maintains no anonymity, authorities carry the ability to track down any offenders, and leaving behind permanent evidence on the Internet contradicts the power of evasion through the use of the ring.

To begin, the "Ring of Gynes" is a philosophical ring mentioned by Plato in book II of the republic, the said ring which, gave the wearer the ability to become invisible once applied and inverted, was said to make even the most just individual corrupt, due to the fact that you could get away with absolutely anything. Glaucon and other Sophists argue that moral virtues are valued by the weak simply because "It restrains the strong. Most people would take advantage of their neighbors if they were certian tehey would not be apprehended and punished, for they are interested only in their own welfaire. Injustice is more profictable than justice, provided that it is possible to excape detection." Page 10.

To understand the term immoral, it is first important to understand the meaning of the word moral, from which the word is derived. From the traditional point of view, the term morals refers to “accepted principles that determine what is right and wrong behavior in general” (McGregor 262). From this, we can understand Immoral to imply the intentional breach of these generally accepted principles of right and wrong. An

Within Book 2 of Plato’s work The Republic, Socrates’ companion Glaucon describes the tale of the ring of Gyges, challenging Socrates on the nature of man. Within the ring of Gyges scenario, Glaucon posits that when an individual has the power granted by a ring of absolute invisibility that grants impunity, “no one […] would be so incorruptible that he would stay on the path of justice or stay away from other people’s property, when he could take whatever he wanted” (Plato 360c). Glaucon’s question presupposes a pessimistic attitude towards human nature, that individuals only act justly due to societal pressures and retribution. Plato grapples with this idea throughout his work, providing the contention that justice is a state of the soul and that individuals that abuse the power of the ring of Gyges end up suffering due to an imbalance of the soul. Plato ultimately utilizes Glaucon’s argument to frame a major theme within The Republic, a question of the natural tendency of human nature. This question has not only driven the works of Plato, but also of later thinkers including Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes. Each of these authors provides distinct ideas regarding what the authors believe to be the natural state of the human condition. The authors’ beliefs about humanity can best be read in their assessment of what constitutes the natural state of human existence, such as Hobbes’ state of

Referring to morality from an individual point of view, each person has strong beliefs about what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, morals differ from person to person and may be due to difference in culture. Morality also results from basic human emotions i.e. love, hate, honesty, greed, sins etc (Psychology Today).

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light” – Plato

What if you had a magic ring like the ring of Gyges (Republic, 359d)? Why be just or moral? Develop the complete answer of Socrates in Plato 's Republic, through 449a. Then consider whether Plato 's Socrates in The Apology would answer in a way that was any different, in substance or in tone. Your own opinion is worth a page of so, but focus on the argument of Plato 's Socrates.

Goodness is often readily apparent in a character’s actions. Evil manifests itself in deceit, often taking the form of its opposite. It is therefore evil which must be more carefully scrutinized in the world’s players, to see how it has tainted those who walk with shrouded steps.

Because of this we are intensely interested in what others are doing, and why. We need to know who is good and bad and therefore who we want to avoid and who we can tolerate.” This means that the interaction with other individuals is needed to create a personality, and therefore, determine if a human is good or evil, since that is the way that humans are aware of who to hang out with and who to keep away from. But how is it possible to label an individual as “good” or “evil” when an interaction is given? Considering that people interacts with others due to personal interests for the other individual, there is a correlation as they share a point of view, and if that person is beneficial for them, the individual is defined as “good”, and if someone brings disadvantages is defined as “evil.” For example, if the surroundings of an individual are constructed by insecurity, negativity and vandalism, it will create a similar point of view that will lead to the evil. And on the other hand, if the surrounding of an individual is positive, it will create a way to good. Factors such as speaking, thinking, and communicating attribute to the personality of an individual defining if people are good or evil, but also our personality can incorporate illiteracy and ignorance.