Do you think the Gyges’ ring parable is still relevant in the contemporary world?
Is there such a thing as human nature? If not explain why. If so, to what extent are people naturally unjust?
Gyges says the just and unjust man would act exactly the same if both possessed the ring. Why would this be?
To what extent are people constrained from injustice only by fear of penalty?
If Glaucon is right, how ought society be constructed?
If Glaucon is wrong, how ought society be constructed?
Plato recorded his mentor Socrates’ most influential ideas in the form of fictional dialogues, conversations that Socrates held with prominent Athenians of his day. Although many of the dialogues address political issues, Plato’s important treatise on politics is contained in The Republic, in which Socrates discusses justice and how it is to be achieved in society. In Book II section 357e-360a of the Republic Glaucon (means light) Plato’s brother, insists that to be just – that is, to follow commonly accepted standards of justice-is rational only if one is constrained to do so.
Glaucon
They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; –it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.
Now that those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; 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. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice. Enough of this.
Required to write and turn in a 2-3 page paper assignment. Information needed for the papers are from course readings. The assignments are to utilize the below paper evaluation criteria, do not plagiarize, cite text including all paraphrasing, follow basic grammatical rules, have an introduction, three to four paragraphs for body, provides clear explanations, provide a conclusion plus question for discussion.
Papers are to address the following:
(1) Critically analyze and answer focus questions. Outline key ideas presented by the Author.
(2) Clearly define the key concepts or elements(s) most relevant to the course.
(3) Develop an argument (your own) and articulate in the body of paper drawing from Challenge of Politics text.
(4) Develop a question and answer that you prepared for discussion posts (place in papers conclusion).
(5) Do not plagiarized from text, paraphrasing without citing is plagiarism, cite the pages in the text where you obtained your information, explain and answer all the above. Papers showing clear understandings are rewarded the most points. Formal writing and do not use first person “I.”
Paper assignments evaluation criteria and expectations:
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
(1) A well-developed introductory paragraph. This paragraph is to have a clearly stated thesis, definition of terms, clearly stated position or argument, and a detailed summary and description that tells the reader about the paper.
