1. The
whole point of The Republic is to
prove that following morality is advantageous, not from external rewards but
from internal benefits. In other words,
he wants to prove that it is not in our best interest to use the Ring of
Gyges. Discuss any of his arguments from Chapter 12. Do they work? If so, why do they work? If not, what is the flaw?
Plato argues that regardless of situation, the benefits of fulfilling a moral will always be more rewarding than the perceived benefits of acting immorally. In all, Plato fails to acknowledge that the pursuit of happiness is something that varies based on each person’s desires, instead suggesting that the intrinsic satisfaction of acting morally should be, and is, more fulfilling than any merits that practicing immorality could bring. Plato argues that these benefits of immorality are simply illusory pleasures which distract us from the pain in our life, self-inflicted by immoral decisions. These pleasures do not truly fulfill our desires or needs, and thus however tempting it may be to make an immoral decision and benefit from it, these benefits are tainted with guilt, and are thoroughly less satisfying than acting morally.
ReplyDeleteIn the “Ring of Gyges” situation, one is faced with the opportunity to commit immoral acts without fear of retribution. However tempting it may be, Plato’s argument against seizing this opportunity speaks to his notion of the importance of intrinsic satisfaction or guilt towards our happiness. Whereas for most people, fear of retaliation or punishment is the driving factor behind not robbing a jewelry store per se, in his “Ring of Gyges” idea, Plato even argues that without fear of repercussions, that the guilt of acting immorally weighs more heavily upon someone than however valuable their rewards are.
The central flaw in Plato’s argument however, is that while his notions paint a picture of a model philosopher and human being, this is not necessarily the case. Plato fails to acknowledge that there is not necessarily a defined set of core values instilled in every human, that remain constant regardless of circumstance. Whereas a philosopher’s true end goal in the pursuit of happiness is true knowledge, morality, and enlightenment, another man’s may be the acquiring of wealth, regardless of how this wealth is acquired, even if it requires immoral means.
In all, Plato presents a strong argument, but one that essentially fails to recognize the inevitable flaws of human character. Happiness is different to everyone, and although it may be an unpleasant fact to face, some can, and will exercise immorality in order to reach their goals.
Plato offers us the simple idea that morality is always greater than immorality. Whether it be your thoughts, actions or words, if you act morally, you will benefit from being moral. He explains to us how morality offers the best way of life. We as humans are all faced with this complex decision of choosing to act morally, or to go with the better-looking action of being immoral. In the long run, choosing to be moral will always be the most beneficial, but at first glance, immorality is often seen as the best option. If you choose to be immoral, you will have that decision hanging over you the rest of your life, as it will cause you to act immorally in the future. When you act morally, it avoids all those bumps in the road of life, and serves as a precedent for all future decisions you will face in your life. This is the argument that Plato gives us of morality in The Republic.
ReplyDeleteDaily, us as humans are faced with decisions regarding morality and immorality. We can see it in the movie, A Simple Plan. They are faced with the choice of taking money they found, millions of dollars, or turning it in to authorities. According to Plato, the moral choice would be to turn the money. It would be completely immoral to take the money for them. To remain moral, they must keep choosing the moral way of the decisions they face. We also see this type of decisions in “the Ring of Gyges”. Man is faced with the decision to wear a ring that allows him to act immorally with no consequence, or to not wear the ring at all. The best option in both of these cases seems to be to take the money and to wear the ring, the two immoral decisions.
There is a flaw in Plato’s Idea of acting morally. He says that everyone needs to act completely moral to fulfill the moral life. They need to be 100% moral. In a certain way, Plato contradicts himself here. Earlier in The Republic, Plato told us that no one is ever truly moral, that there is no way to be 100% moral. In Chapter 12, he tells us that to fulfill a moral life, you need to be completely moral. This is not possible if you follow what he directs us to do earlier in The Republic; to be close to fully moral as possible.
After defining morality, we learned earlier that philosophers are guided by morality and the knowledge and understanding that comes with it. In chapter 12, Plato's second argument argues that these moral philosophers will be better off because of their knowledge of the three parts of mind (Also introduced in an earlier chapter). His argument works because it presents the clear advantage of philosophers that they get to experience more pleasure than other people.
ReplyDeleteIn an earlier chapter, Plato discussed the three parts of mind that exist: the rational, the passionate, and the desirous. He further investigated the fact and concluded that different types of people are primarily driven by one of the specific parts of mind. Chapter 12 further investigated what that meant for the philosopher. (For the sake of this argument, Plato refers to the three parts of mind as the three pleasures here). After some buildup to his point, Plato asks, "(Who) has had the greatest exposure to all the pleasures we've mentioned" (328). Philosophers, obviously! He continues, "a philosopher has inevitably experienced both the other kinds of pleasure" (329), keeping in mind that a philosophers driving pleasure is knowledge. Plato presents a killer point right here. Someone who lives by the other pleasures of life can only be so happy. They can only fulfill the pleasures of the specific part of mind. Given that the pleasure of a philosopher is understanding the "forms" and the way things are, it is obvious that philosophers will be familiar with and have access to the other pleasures that they teach themselves so much about. The pleasure of gaining knowledge gives them a three-in-one deal. Theoretically, they would be able, in their life time, to fulfill the pleasures of all three parts of mind. They will have the knowledge and understanding to keep them in check with each other, and keep a balance given their love of knowledge. Others who spend their lives fulfilling the other two single pleasures, will never have the time or the capacity to juggle fully fulfilling multiple pleasures, let alone learning extensively about them. If this doesn't make philosophers better off, if this isn't a defining advantage of being morally driven, than I don't know what is.
Plato’s three arguments are each constructed well, but combined, they form a powerful argument. Using the first argument as a foundation, we can use the third argument to fill in gaps of reasoning and to add extra evidence. Plato’s first argument is driven by the fact that “a dictator is actually never fulfilled” because his “desires are completely insatiable” (325). Whether he desires to travel or acquire friends, he will never be able to adequately fulfill those wishes. Plato then has Socrates ask his companion to choose which of the five types of people is most happy. His companion then replies that a regal person is the happiest. Plato believes that this is an adequate argument because he has arrived at his desired conclusion, ignoring the fact that he never justified why the regal is the most happy. Why is morality the cause of unhappiness? The only thing that Plato has proved is that out of the five types, dictatorial has the least pleasure. However, it is in his third argument that he actually explains his justification. Going back to the argument about the three parts of the brain, he brings up his conclusion that morality is when all parts of the mind do their own job. He explains his argument, stating that when each part “can enjoy its own pleasures,” they will be able to “reap as much benefit and truth from pleasure as is possible” (336). Not only does he show that a moral person is able to experience most pleasure, he even uses his definition of morality to prove his case. Additionally in his third argument, Plato shows that there are three different types of pleasure, and that the intellectual type is the best. Not only has Plato shown that the philosopher has the most pleasure, he has also shown that this pleasure is the best. The claim that a philosophical lifestyle is the happiest is substantiated by combining Plato’s first and third arguments, creating a much more compelling argument.
ReplyDeleteIn book 2 Socrates attempts to prove that the moral choice is always the best choice. In other words, the choice of a moral person and a rational but selfish person would actually be the same choice. He begins his argument with a few premises. First, he describes “good” as something that is intrinsically desired rather than indirectly or not at all; he also asserts a second category of things that are desired because of both intrinsic and indirect consequences are also good. He then adds a third category of things that are intrinsically annoying but have positive consequences such as health care that are also described as “good.” The intent of this is to describe things that a rational and selfish person might choose: money, health, intelligence, etc. Socrates then moves his discussion to morality. Most people think of morality of being in the third category, annoying but with good consequences; however, Socrates claims that it is in the best category, the one desired intrinsically and also with good consequences. Socrates then has to make a sub argument explaining his claim that morality is both intrinsically good and has good consequences. His argument at first seems to disprove his previous points; given the story of the Ring of Gyges, we learn that any man who could act without consequences would commit immoral actions, even if he didn’t, he would appear foolish. Socrates counters this by arguing that the combination of both internal guild and punishment from the gods, specifically after death, are enough to deter anyone from committing immoral actions. Assuming that this holds, it would then follow that any rational and selfish person would behave morally out of fear and guilt.
ReplyDeleteThis argument has several flaws. The most major flaw is the final premise. This initial part of the premise is that without consequences, a man would behave immorally. To counter this Socrates essentially gives consequences that would prohibit immoral behavior. Thus, someone without gods, and without guilt, would act immorally in the described situation. Given that both of these are not only possible, but are fairly common occurrences (psychopath etc.) this first premise does not hold. Even if we were to exclude emotional disorders, guilt is not uniform across humanity. One person may feel bad about swatting a fly while another wouldn’t think twice. Essentially Socrates’s counter to absence of consequences is that there are always consequences. While his examples do not hold well, the basic idea does. There is no Ring of Gyges in real life to remove all consequences. While guilt and faith may not be good deterrents, the legal and social consequences that proliferate through every branch of life do.
Throughout The Republic, Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, attempts to convince the reader and his various philosopher counterparts that acting with morality is advantageous; but human nature’s inclination is to act immorally. Plato explains this fact in two arguments throughout The Republic using the Ring of Gyges analogy.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 1 of Plato’s collection, he and his peers outline the legend of the Ring of Gyges. Glaucon, one of Socrates fellow philosophers, begins the discussion stating “Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other” (360b). Plato and Glaucon argue that everyone desires ‘external benefits’ such as wealth, and others include committing immoral actions such as frequent sex with many different partners or theft. It allows a person to act immorally without their actions being seen. After Glaucon poses the purpose of the Ring of Gyges, he argues that
No man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men (360b)
Glaucon’s point appears to be cynical and above all pessimistic on the subject of human nature, but at first glance appears to be correct.Plato, through Socrates, does not in fact rush to disprove Glaucon’s point, but he actually agrees with Glaucon.
Instead of rushing to disagree, Plato waits until the last chapter of the book to add on to Glaucon’s point concluding with the fact that people should desire to act with morality. After finishing his philosopher-king point, he begins by describing the mental image of a tyrant and showing that tyrants have no real freedom and they are mentally troubled and because of the constant, never-ending hunger for power… (Further explanation of argument) Plato finally ends his argument stating “that justice in itself is the best thing for the soul itself, and that the soul ought to do justice whether it possess the ring of Gyges or not”. He simply is saying that a tyrant, or a man who is irrationally lusting for power and wealth is unhappy, and a man who is in control of his desires and emotions is happy.
After much ado, Plato finally draws the conclusion that morality is inherently rewarding in the twelfth chapter of The Republic. The first argument that he makes to come to this conclusion stems from his discussion of the best and worst systems of government and the type of person that corresponds with each. He then goes about deciding which type of person would be happiest by determining which type of community would be the happiest. He starts by considering the dictatorship, which he has previously deemed the worst type of government, and makes the conclusion that “wretched servitude, with no civil rights, is pretty must the universal condition of the citizen body” (Plato 577d). He then, as he had previously planned, extrapolates this observation to the mind of a dictator-esque person and explains that “oppression and servitude must pervade his mind, with the truly good parts of it being oppressed, and an evil, crazed minority doing the oppressing” (577d). The dictator, according to Plato, is “resentful, unreliable, immoral, friendless, and unjust” and has every bad quality imaginable (580a). Hence, because his mind is a slave to these vices, and cannot control itself because the rational part is subject to the other parts, the dictator is the unhappiest of people.
ReplyDeleteThis logic adequately proves that an unmoral (dictoral) person, even if his public image in the eyes of god and man suggests his nature otherwise, would be the most unhappy of the five types of men. Even if he could commit any crime without consequence—to use the Ring of Gyges, so to speak—the known fact that he has no control over his internal demons would drive him not only to unhappiness but also, perhaps, to insanity. While he may revel in stolen riches and be a saint in the public eye, his mental state will indubitably suffer at the rule of the lustful parts of his mind, just as a populace’s well-being deteriorates under the rule of a dictator. This argument can’t fall apart. Even if a dictator has no guilt, he will still be controlled by the demons of his mind encouraging him to act immorally; even if he has no fear of punishment, he is still a slave. In no situation can there be a dictator, an immoral person, who is happy because there is no situation where a slave is happy! The dictator or the slave may perhaps feel an absence of unhappiness; however, he will never know true happiness.
(Cont'd.)
ReplyDeleteHence, it follows that the type of person with a personality farthest away from that of a dictator, a king, would be the most happy. This statement, just as the assertion that a dictator is most immoral and most unhappy, “works” because it is based on solid logic. If a dictator is the least happy, the person least like the dictator would be the most happy. Further, Plato’s assertion that a person ruled by the logical part of the mind is the happiest also works, because when logic controls the mind, desires are kept in their place and internal demons are not given free reign. If a person does not succumbed to the will of evil forces in his head, if he is never a slave, he has the freedom to make moral choices; this freedom from the reign of evil is what gives a moral person his happiness.