In Plato’s monumental work, The Republic, after dispensing with the loudmouth Thracymachus who insisted that “justice is the interest of the stronger,” Socrates is confronted by a stronger opponent. Glaucon, one of Plato’s brothers, has been listening to Socrates dismantle Thracymachus’ argument when he confronts Socrates with the possibility that justice really is the interest of the stronger and that Socrates has not fully addressed that possibility.
Glaucon places in front of Socrates the myth of the shepherd boy, Gyges, who while sitting around a fire with his chums playing with a ring he found that day he turns the ring inwards and disappears. While he is “gone” his chums start talking about him and he learned how they truly feel about him; but he also sees the possibilities of such a ring. In brief, he later seduces the queen, kills the king, and finds himself the most powerful man on earth. All because of the ring. Glaucon insists that no one could resist such a temptation: all men and women would do what they want to do rather than what they should do — if they could get away with it.
This is a powerful argument and it takes Socrates nine long chapters to create his Republic in which, he insists, good men and women would rise to the top and they would, in fact, be able to resist the temptations of the ring of Gyges. Aristotle will later call this “character” and insist that it is instilled in young men and women in their youth and later determines the choices they make when it comes to justice and injustice.
It is difficult for the modern reader to agree to the logic of Socrates’ argument, to allow that ordinary men and women would not succumb to the temptations of such a ring — if it allowed them to get away with anything. Some might say that “conscience” would prohibit unjust actions among many — or at least some — but even this argument is weakened these days when we seem to have lost sight of such a thing as “character” and tend to let people pretty much do what they want. Most, I suspect, would insist that it is naive to suppose that anyone today would resist the ring of Gyges. The only thing that keeps us on the straight and narrow is the fear of getting caught.
I’m not sure if we can settle the disagreement one way or the other, since we know so little about why people do what they do and even those who seem to do the right thing most of the time may be driven by self-interest and the fear of getting caught. It’s never quite clear in our own cases why we do the things we do! But if we recall that Plato imagines a perfect society (as he sees it) in which from birth children are raised to do the right thing, to place the welfare of others before that of themselves, to form what will later be called “good character,” then perhaps we can allow that such a thing is possible — at least in theory.
The difficulty is, of course, that ours is not a perfect society — supposing that there is such a thing — and we have turned our attention away from character to such things as “self-esteem, “honesty,” and “getting in touch with our feelings.” In a word, we don’t stress the importance of caring about others so much as we stress making sure we take care of #1. I have blogged about this before and I will not go there again. But it is interesting to think that both Plato and Aristotle were convinced that the main thing that brings political bodies down is the turning attention away from what was later called “the common good” toward self-interest. When rulers and those who make the rules care more about themselves than they do about the voters who put them into office it is the beginning of a process that can only result in the dissolution of the political body.
Morality is not simply about Jimmy doing the right thing when he finds a wallet on the sidewalk. It is also about the people in power, who make decisions that effect so many others, caring more about themselves than they do about those who matter most — to wit, their constituents. The Other has been lost in the preoccupation we seem to have with ourselves, rights are all the rage while correlative responsibilities are seldom mentioned. The moral high ground disappears in the mist of looking our for #1.
How many could resist the temptations of therein of Gyges? Very few, I fear. And those who lust after money and power are least likely of all.
Indeed! The ring of Gyges perhaps has a tone of the ring of Sauron from Lord of the rings… Yet Frodo manages to resist the terrible evil power that the ring of invisibility brings with it. While such resistance may be fanciful, we equate Frodo’s strength as coming from a good ‘character.’
It is a self effacing and truthful desire to help others first and foremost. Is this an innate or learned behaviour? Either way, there is little evidence of it in political circles!
I see no evidence to support the claim that the desire to help others is innate. Children are ineluctably selfish and our culture encourages us to remain children as long as possible! I do think the desire to help others is learned — it is a function of what we used to call “character.” (I had not thought about the parallel with Lord of the Rings. Thanks for that.)
It’s an interesting area , what about a Mother’s love for her offspring? Isn’t that an inate inclination? And if that offspring receives the maternal care and affection, is that not a way of teaching the character building that human beings need for a harmonious existence with one another that Plato so cherishes in the ideal society?
Absolutely, yes. The mother-child relationship is unique — and remember the mother has already formed whatever character she might have. But affection is a part of what character is all about, surely. Plato didn’t happen to mention that, however!
Yes I think concept of family was such an ingrained archetype in Ancient Greece, and still is after watching families interact here, that Plato maybe assumed the reader would know …..as a mother you love and nurture your children, and as a father you teach and guide them. I think your commentaries about modern man are correct in that there is far too much emphasis placed on , “What’s in it for me, me, me…. ” forgetting important human mores, and morals, manners, ..there might be hope, watching a young person the other day, happened to notice the inscription on her baseball cap which simply read…”Be Kind “…
Such a bleak, yet truthful outlook on the state of humanity. I was at first encouraged by Chuck’s comment about maternal love, until I remembered all the stories I have seen in recent years of mothers abusing and even killing their children. Sigh. The problem, of course, is if we accept this as the norm, accept that nobody is truly more concerned about the good of the whole rather than the individual, it absolves us of the responsibility to try to be better … it is the acceptable norm. And this is why in my next life I will be a wolf. 🐺
Good choice! You would make an excellent wolf! I will come back as a Hawk — a red-tail!
Gurdjieff says you need to have the Wolf and sheep within you and know when to call up the appropriate one….tricky sometimes..but it’s within our scope of understanding if we make the effort.
Awesome! Perhaps you’ll swoop down and say ‘hello, old friend” every now and then.
There are always going to be psyopathic persons somewhere, just hope you don’t have to interact with them.,