The Ring of Gyges is a legend that tells of a shepherd in service to the king of Lydia. One day, Gyges stumbled upon a ring in an opening in the earth. He discovered that when he twisted the ring, he turned invisible and those around him never noticed his disappearance. According to the legend, Gyges had hardly discovered his power when he seduced the queen, killed the king, and took over the entire kingdom (Vaughn 28). Gyges may have been a just man, but he did not think long before becoming unjust for his own personal gain.
Glaucon classifies goods into three categories: the first is goods that are good for their own sakes, such as harmless pleasures and delights that are followed by no meaningful consequence. The second is goods that are desirable not only for themselves, but also for what they bring. Knowledge, sight, and health are examples of second class goods. Lastly, the third class of goods are the goods that are disagreeable, but their result is desirable. In the third class, he places gymnastics, physicians’ care, and making money (Vaughn 27). These classes are broad enough to fit everything, but are focused enough to identify the definitive differences.
In Plato’s “Ring of Gyges,” Glaucon explains the nature of justice by discussing the origin of justice, asking why men practice justice only out of necessity, and explaining how an unjust life is far better than a just one. Let us examine each of these. First, Glaucon explains justice as a lesser evil and only a compromise. Despite a man’s urge to do unpunished injustices , he is keen to avoid suffering an injustice. Thus, he deems injustices unlawful. Second, Glaucon uses the Ring of Gyges to determine that, “those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust (Vaughn 28).” As discussed earlier, this legend tells of a just man that committed adultery, regicide, and conquered a kingdom, when given the opportunity to do injustices without fear of punishment. Lastly, Glaucon claims a man who is unjust, but believed to be just, is respected, honored, and successful. Conversely, a man who is just, but believed to be unjust will be, “Scourged, racked, bound— will have his eyes burnt out and… will be impaled (Vaughn 29).” These three points demonstrate that Glaucon feels injustice falls into this third category of good, where justice is only considered worthwhile for the consequences of glory and honor that comes with it, but not on its own (Vaughn 27-29).
To Socrates, however, justice is altogether more simple. He claims that being just is about the internal good of a man, rather than the outside reward or fame. Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine many sculpted beasts inside of a man. He says that these wild beasts become more wild and controlling if fed injustice, to the point of dragging the weaker man wherever the animals wish to go. Through justice, however, the beasts can be domesticated and controlled by the inner man becoming stronger and, “Who should care for the many-headed beast like a farmer (Vaughn 30).” Socrates places justice in Glaucon’s highest class of goods, the class that values goods for their face value as well as the consequences they bring. These conclude that Socrates views justice as part of a man that determines his strength and value by winning the internal struggle to tame the beast, as well as the reward it brings of being made into a better man (Vaughn 29-30).
In my opinion, Glaucon is closer to the truth of justice. Socrates illustrates a situation in which a man can only be in control of himself if he controls his inner beast. However, this is based on the premise that the man has a beast inside of him that is separate from himself. The tendency to commit injustices for self gain is a trait in every man, because the man and the many-headed beast are the same creature. For example, Gyges took the opportunity to do injustices unpunished almost immediately. Glaucon’s stance that men only do justice to avoid punishment and having injustices done to them is more evident in real life scenarios such as the corruption of government officials or a toddler’s instinct to hide a broken lamp for fear of punishment. Therefore, men are inherently unjust and only follow a moral code of conduct as a sort of social contract in which they are just and are consequently protected from injustices.
Glaucon is correct in assuming that people will choose to be immoral if their identity is kept secret. His Ring of Gyges story is a perfect example, but I would like to examine a less fantastical example. This tendency to remain anonymous is something that humans exhibit from their early years of life. When a three year old eats all of the cookies, she blames it on a bandit. This is a far reaching hope that by blaming someone else, her identity will be unknown, and she avoid punishment. This same toddler would likely not steal if someone could see her, but is she can get away with the crime, she gets her reward. I believe that this is a trend through all stages of life and people believe that a plate of cookies is worth the risk if they can prevent being found out as the culprit. This is also evident in the anonymity awarded by the internet. If you scroll through a comment section on any site, you will find a plethora of mean or degrading reviews. Similarly, a person is less responsible for cyberbullying if their crime is under a goofy username. Dissociated anonymity is a term for people who convince themselves that their online behaviors "aren't me at all.” This is normally called disassociation, and provides an opportunity for an expression of “Sexual and aggressive tendencies, [that] are basic components of personality too, as are the psychological defenses designed to control them” (Suler). This ability to disassociate oneself from the consequences and meanings of actions from the other side of the screen leaves individuals with the courage to wreak havoc on others without being punished or having to see the destruction left in their wake.
In Sherry Turkle’s article, “The Flight from Conversation,” she describes the new world we live in as shaped by technology. She says, “We are together, but each of us is in our own bubble, furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens” (Turkle), saying people have reshaped their connection to the world by staying connected through texting and social media, yet separate at the same time by not talking face-to-face. She calls this type of communication “connecting in sips,” which does not give people the ability to truly understand one another, and gives the illusion that people are connected, while never having a real relationship. She gives evidence of young people constantly having earphones in to avoid conversation and human interaction, which makes them isolated and alone, even if they believe they are solving the problem of being alone by being connected. She also believes, “Our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection” (Turkle), by preventing people from needing to learn about themselves to be able to hold conversation. This lack of human interaction leads to a decrease in empathy and the ability to hold a worthwhile conversation.
While Turtle does make a strong claim and defends it, I do not agree. Humans have been distracting themselves from social interaction for centuries. The need to stay occupied has led to cross-stitching, reading the newspaper, and now, phones. If humans have been avoiding connection for so long, how is the lack of self-reflection and flight from real relationships a new occurrence? Similarly, humans have been writing letters, calling on the phone, and sending messengers to communicate rather than have a conversation face-to-face. With centuries of experience, humans have developed the ability to communicate with far more than just verbal conversations, and with people all over the world, rather than those in the same room. If we have lost this ability to have real human connections, perhaps it was lost long ago when the kings and queens never even met their allies or husbands and wives. To summarize, Turkle’s findings are not a revolutionary change brought about by technology, but simply the human tendency to communicate with those outside of their physical sphere.