The Ring of Gyges - Assignment Example

The Ring of Gyges Introduction The ring of Gyges is a myth that is not necessary based on any historical facts. There was an ancestor of Gyges who was a shepherd. It happened that as he was feeding the flock, an earthquake was witnessed thus exposing a cave on the mountain. Upon entering the cave, he noticed a bronze horse containing a corpse who wore a golden ring. When he got the ring and pocketed, he discovered it gave him the power to be invisible. With his power invisibility, he seduced the queen and murdered the king so that he took over his throne as the next king. According to Socrates, the power of invisibility evident in the ring of Gymes should not be used to perpetrate injustices. His argument presents a counter attack to Glaucon’s philosophy of purporting that if two identical rings are presented to a just and unjust man, they would both act unjustly. Therefore, proceeds to argue that those who incline their actions to be just only do so under compulsion. He also says that one may decline using the ring to perform misdeeds. Meaning that although such a person would receive praises on her face but on the other side she would be regarded a great fool who is unable to utilize the power in her possession.  Socrates’ Perception Socrates states that one does not derive justice from the social construct. That’s why his argument tallies that the man who abused the power contained in the ring enslaved himself to his selfish appetites. But hold that the man who chooses not to use the ring remains rationally in total control of himself and thus he is very happy. Therefore, Socrates suggests that the man who uses the ring is always at a constant war with himself ( Copp, 2007).  Socrates Argument Socrates is in a strong belief that the soul consists of three parts. These parts include; rational, appetitive and Spirited. He continues to argue that an appetite for something exists like hunger and thirst. He says that we always have some knowledge concerning the demands that are driving us to satisfy the appetite. Therefore, he poses to think, supposing something holds the thirsty person from drinking, what could it be termed to be? This analogy is used to describe the three parts of the soul. The rational part is that which is concerned with the calculation thus goes ahead to examine the existing appetites in relation to the expected consequences. He suggests that the part linked to hunger, lusts, thirsts and which is tickled by all forms of appetites is the irrational appetitive part. Finally, Socrates states that when appetite compels someone against rational calculation then he feels reproached and gets angered because of the two forces. He, therefore, reasons that this is so because the spirit allies itself to the reason. Therefore, this answers our earlier question of what held the person from drinking is the spirited element/part of the soul. Socrates is of the idea that the justice is connected to the three parts of the soul. He explains that that a just man has the three parts balanced appropriately while the unjust man gets ruled by his selfish appetites instead of being controlled by proper reasoning. Hence, he says that unjust is somehow like a disease existing in the three parts of the soul that make the man be at constant war within himself with no peace[Cri05]. Evaluation of Socrates Argument Socrates arguments seem to be strong and critically reasoned. He seeks to promote justice by all standards. He asserts that a just behaviour has it reward since this is what maintains the balance required in keeping our souls balanced. He realistically argues that some may get away of their immoral acts unpunished, but cautions them plainly that they will in deed live with the feelings attached to their actions. Majority of people have the instinctive sense of judging what is right and wrong, and thus this is what is referred to as the conscience. This conscience influences the state of being at peace with yourself or battling with guilt inside of you due to your deeds and actions which you engage to do. Socrates argues his case categorically enough to outwit the philosophy of Glaucon. Glaucon concluded that if a just man is stripped everything apart from his justice and life; he is burdened with a tag of a bad reputation despite his true nobility. Hence, he says that this just man should be tested thoroughly in order to determine closely if his actions are purely for the sake of justice or merely for his reputation’s sake. As explained from Socrates argument, whatever one does is propelled by the appetitive forces that fight against the rational reasoning. He goes further to argue that one does not find situations that the spirit allies itself with the appetite against the reason. Thus, this is what drives justice from his view that is strongly support. (Conard, 2007).  I would not dare to use the ring of injustice because I view injustice to be against the moral values which are against the human right. The ring of injustice would help you acquire what you want, how much you want and wherever you want. The basic question that burgeons my heart is at the expense of who? Therefore, it will be against my conscious to facilitate such deeds or actions to my benefit when someone is crying foul somewhere. My conscience will not permit thriving in an unjust manner. Gaining profits unjustly without penalty can never make my life better in any way. The reason is that my guilt conscious will way me down and leave me down casted. The continuous feeling in my mind reminding me of getting someone’s thing from without their permission or purchasing can ruin my peace completely. The lack of peace of mind will affect my moods hence robbing myself the joy of life. Ultimately this leaves me concluding that it’s better to lack those precious and good things that I wish to posess. I would rather lack all those things than lack the joy and happiness that comes from legitimacy that comes from acquiring what I can afford within my means. References Conard, M. (Ed.). (2007). The Philosophy of Martin Scorsese. University Press of Kentucky. Copp, D. (2007). Morality in a natural world (pp. 243-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cri05: , ( Pigliucci , 2005), Read More