The Ring of Gyges—Plato's Republic, Book 2

Summary

In the first book of Plato's 'The Republic,' Socrates debates with Thrasymachus about the nature of justice. Thrasymachus initially claims justice is what benefits the stronger, but Socrates refutes this view. Glaucon then challenges Socrates with the 'Ring of Gyges' thought experiment, suggesting that if one could act unjustly without consequence, most would choose to do so. This prompts a deeper discussion on whether justice is intrinsically good or merely a social construct. Socrates suggests an analogy between individual souls and the state to further explore the concept of justice.

Takeaways

• 🤔 In 'The Republic', Socrates debates the nature of justice with Thrasymachus, who initially claims that justice is what benefits the stronger.
• 🏁 Socrates challenges Thrasymachus' definition, leading to a shift in the dialogue from 'what is justice?' to 'is it better to be just or unjust?'
• 🔄 Thrasymachus concedes defeat, suggesting that justice might not be in the interest of the just person, leaving the question of justice's value unsettled.
• 💡 Glaucon introduces the concept of intrinsic vs. instrumental goods, arguing that justice might be a tool for self-interest rather than an end in itself.
• 📚 Glaucon proposes a social contract theory of justice, suggesting that people adopt justice to avoid conflict and harm, viewing it as an instrumental good.
• 💎 The 'Ring of Gyges' thought experiment is introduced by Glaucon to illustrate the potential for injustice when one can act without consequences.
• 🧐 Glaucon challenges Socrates with the question of whether it's better to be just or to appear just, suggesting that the latter might be more advantageous.
• 🤓 Socrates does not immediately respond to Glaucon's challenge but instead suggests exploring the nature of the soul and justice within the state as an analogy.
• 🌐 Socrates' analogy between the state and an individual organism is a contentious claim that has been debated throughout the history of philosophy.
• 🔮 The dialogue in 'The Republic' raises fundamental questions about the nature of justice, its value to individuals, and the ethical implications of its pursuit.

Q & A

What is the main argument Socrates initially takes on in Book One of The Republic?

In Book One of The Republic, Socrates initially takes on the argument that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger, as proposed by Thrasymachus.

How does Socrates respond to Thrasymachus' definition of justice?

Socrates responds by critically examining Thrasymachus' views and showing the inconsistencies in his arguments, leading Thrasymachus to eventually concede that he cannot maintain his position.

What question does Glaucon raise at the beginning of Book Two that challenges Socrates?

Glaucon questions whether Socrates is truly persuading them or merely seeming to persuade them, expressing his lack of persuasion by Socrates' arguments against Thrasymachus.

What is the distinction Glaucon makes between instrumental and intrinsic goods?

Glaucon distinguishes between instrumental goods, which are sought for the sake of something else, and intrinsic goods, which are sought for their own sake.

Why does Glaucon challenge Socrates to prove that justice is an intrinsic good?

Glaucon challenges Socrates because if justice is merely an instrumental good, it would lack ethical significance and would not be fundamental to how one ought to live.

What is the social contract theory that Glaucon proposes as an alternative to Socrates' view of justice?

Glaucon proposes a version of social contract theory where justice is seen as a set of rules or principles adopted as instruments to prevent conflict and achieve mutual benefits, rather than as an intrinsic good.

What is the Ring of Gyges and how does it feature in Glaucon's argument?

The Ring of Gyges is a mythical object that grants invisibility. Glaucon uses it as a thought experiment to argue that people would act unjustly if they could get away with it, suggesting that justice is not an intrinsic good but rather a matter of appearance and consequence.

How does Glaucon use the story of Gyges to challenge the idea of justice?

Glaucon uses the story of Gyges to illustrate that if one could act unjustly without consequence due to invisibility, they would likely do so, indicating that people are just because they fear the consequences of being caught, not because justice is inherently valuable.

What is the challenge Glaucon poses to Socrates regarding the just and unjust person?

Glaucon challenges Socrates to consider whether it is better to be a just person perceived as unjust or an unjust person perceived as just, arguing that the latter would have a better life due to the advantages of unjust actions without the disadvantages.

Why does Socrates suggest examining justice in the state before directly addressing Glaucon's challenge?

Socrates believes that by examining justice on a larger scale in the state, he can provide a clearer understanding of justice in the soul, and thus indirectly address Glaucon's challenge about the nature of justice and its benefits.

What is the analogy Socrates makes between the state and the individual, and why is it contentious?

Socrates makes an analogy between the state and the individual, suggesting that a state is like a person and can be understood in terms of justice in the same way. This is contentious because a state is not an organism and is better thought of as an ecosystem of organisms.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Socratic Method and the Debate on Justice

In the first paragraph, the script discusses the Socratic method as depicted in Plato's 'The Republic'. Socrates engages in a dialogue with Thrasymachus, challenging his initial claim that justice is whatever benefits the stronger. Through Socratic questioning, Thrasymachus's position is undermined, leading to his eventual withdrawal from the debate. The conversation shifts from defining justice to whether being just is advantageous for the individual. Socrates concludes that one cannot determine the benefits of justice without a clear understanding of what justice is, setting the stage for further exploration in the dialogue.

05:02

🔍 Glaucon's Challenge and the Ring of Gyges

The second paragraph introduces Glaucon's challenge to Socrates, questioning whether justice is an intrinsic good or merely an instrumental one. Glaucon posits that justice might be a social convention adopted to avoid conflict, thus serving an instrumental purpose. He then presents the hypothetical scenario of the Ring of Gyges, which grants invisibility and allows its wearer to act unjustly without consequence. Glaucon uses this thought experiment to argue that people would likely act unjustly if they could do so without being caught, suggesting that justice is not an intrinsic good but rather a constraint imposed by the fear of punishment.

10:04

🏛️ The Analogy of the State and the Soul

In the third paragraph, the script outlines Socrates' approach to further the discussion on justice. Instead of directly addressing Glaucon's challenge, Socrates suggests examining justice on a larger scale by looking at its role in the state. He proposes an analogy between the individual soul and the state, suggesting that understanding justice in the context of a society can shed light on its nature within an individual. This sets the stage for an exploration of how justice operates within a political framework and its implications for individual psychology.

Keywords

💡Justice

Justice is a concept central to the video, representing the moral principle of fairness, reasonableness, and the assignment of deserved rewards or punishments. In the script, Socrates and Thrasymachus debate the nature of justice, with Thrasymachus initially arguing that justice is 'whatever is in the interest of the stronger.' The discussion evolves to question whether justice is an intrinsic good or merely an instrumental one, and whether it is in the individual's interest to be just.

💡Thrasymachus

Thrasymachus is a character in Plato's 'The Republic' who represents a position against Socrates' views on justice. In the video, he is depicted as arguing that justice is not an end in itself but a means to an end, specifically the advantage of the stronger. His views are challenged by Socrates, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the nature of justice.

💡Socrates

Socrates, the central figure in the dialogue, is known for his method of questioning and his pursuit of definitions. In the video, he engages in a dialectical method to explore the concept of justice, challenging Thrasymachus's views and leading the discussion towards a deeper understanding of whether justice is intrinsically valuable or merely a tool for self-interest.

💡Intrinsic Good

Intrinsic goods are things that are valued for their own sake, not for what they can lead to. In the video, the concept is used to contrast with instrumental goods, questioning whether justice is something that is pursued for its own merits or merely as a means to achieve other ends. Glaucon challenges Socrates to prove that justice is an intrinsic good, not just a tool for self-interest.

💡Instrumental Good

Instrumental goods are things that are valued for their utility or for what they can help achieve. In the video, Glaucon suggests that justice might be an instrumental good, something adopted to avoid conflict and to promote social harmony, rather than something that is inherently valuable.

💡Glaucon

Glaucon is another character in 'The Republic' who challenges Socrates' views on justice. In the video, he introduces the idea of the 'Ring of Gyges' to argue that if people could act unjustly without consequences, they would, suggesting that justice is not an intrinsic good but rather a convention adopted for mutual benefit.

💡Ring of Gyges

The 'Ring of Gyges' is a thought experiment introduced by Glaucon to argue that people would act unjustly if they could do so without being caught. In the video, it is used to challenge the idea that justice is pursued for its own sake, suggesting instead that it is a convention to avoid the negative consequences of being seen as unjust.

💡Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory is a philosophical idea that societies form and are maintained when individuals agree to a set of rules or principles for mutual benefit. In the video, Glaucon outlines a version of this theory, suggesting that justice might be a social convention adopted to prevent harm and promote cooperation.

💡Perception vs. Reality

The video discusses the difference between being just and being perceived as just, using the 'Ring of Gyges' to illustrate how one might act unjustly while appearing just to others. This distinction is central to Glaucon's challenge to Socrates, questioning whether it is better to be just or to appear just.

💡Analogue

The term 'analogue' is used in the video to describe the comparison Socrates makes between the individual soul and the state. Socrates argues that understanding justice in the state can shed light on justice in the soul, suggesting a parallel between the two that is central to his argument in 'The Republic.'

Highlights

Socrates debates the definition of justice with Thrasymachus in Book One of The Republic.

Thrasymachus initially defines justice as 'whatever is in the interest of the stronger'.

Socrates critiques Thrasymachus' views, leading to the latter's eventual concession.

The dialogue shifts from defining justice to debating whether it's better to be just or unjust.

Glaucon introduces the concept of the Ring of Gyges to argue that justice may not be in one's self-interest.

Glaucon distinguishes between intrinsic and instrumental goods, challenging Socrates to prove justice is intrinsically good.

Glaucon suggests that justice might be a social contract to avoid conflict, thus an instrumental good.

The Ring of Gyges thought experiment questions whether people would act justly if they could act unjustly without consequences.

Glaucon argues that appearing just while being unjust might lead to a better life.

Socrates indicates that a deeper understanding of the soul is necessary to address Glaucon's challenge.

Socrates proposes an analogy between justice in the soul and justice in the state.

The debate raises questions about the ethical significance of justice as a tool versus as a fundamental virtue.

Glaucon's challenge to Socrates emphasizes the tension between personal advantage and moral rectitude.

The discussion reflects on the ethical implications of invisibility and the potential for unchecked actions.

Socrates' response to Glaucon's challenge is deferred, indicating a more complex exploration of justice in subsequent dialogue.

The analogy between the state and a person is introduced as a contentious philosophical move.

The debate concludes with the suggestion that justice in the state may illuminate justice in the individual.

Transcripts

in book one of The Republic we saw

Socrates take on a bully through a

semicus and argue about the definition

of justice through simicus starts out by

saying that Justice is whatever is in

the interest of the stronger but we saw

that he keeps shifting his ground as

Socrates criticizes his views at the end

of book 1 through simicus gives up and

decides forget it there's no point in

talking to Socrates lots of people end

up in platonic dialogues deciding the

same thing

but we noticed that the question on the

table really shifted it started with the

question what is Justice and by the end

it had become a debate about whether

it's better for a person to be just or

unjust whether Justice is really in the

interest of the just

personicus seems to argue that it isn't

that basically Justice Dooms the just

that it takes someone who is trying to

be just and ends up putting them in a

position where they just consistently

lose nice guys finish last Leo durocher

said well that seems to be through

civicus's position too and so Socrates

emerges for book one Victorious but also

leaving us a little unsettled he himself

says we shouldn't really accept this

conclusion until we really know what

Justice is in other words this question

of whether Justice is in the interests

of the just person really depends in a

sense on what Justice is and we better

settle that before we really come down

to any kind of conclusion about whether

whether Justice is in someone's interest

now at the beginning of two Cloud God

says you know I

what do you try to do Socrates are you

trying to persuade us or are you just

trying to seem to persuade us

Socrates is taken aback this is the kind

of question Socrates often ask but

cloudcon says look I I'm not persuaded

by this you've given various reasons to

throw simicus but it all seems kind of

inconclusive really I think the person

who is unjustice better off and after

some discussion initially that I'll talk

about in a second

he ends up challenging Socrates with one

of the most famous images from the

Republic from all of Plato and made much

more more famous by Tolkien in The Lord

of the Rings and that is the ring of

gaijis

let's look at the preliminaries to see

how they get there and then let's

examine this argument concerning the

Ring of gaijis that glaucon uses to try

to argue that the just person is in fact

going to be at a terrible disadvantage

Logan's first move is to distinguish

instrumental from intrinsic Goods it's a

distinction made much more famous by

Aristotle and others later but it

appears here already as something that

glaucon uses to challenge Socrates he

says look some things we seek for their

own sake they're really intrinsically

good other things we seek for the sake

of something else that really means to

something they're tools they're

instruments hence instrumental Goods now

some things are both they're both

intrinsically good and they're useful

they're also instrumentally good

in fact many things really turn out to

be like that perhaps virtue itself is

like that pleasure honor even

self-respect might really be something

in that intermediate category an overlap

between instrumental and intrinsic Goods

but what are we to say about Justice

after all this question of whether

Justice is something that is useful for

the person who is just or puts them at a

disadvantage as their cimicus thought

Duncan says look that's really a

question about whether Justice is an

instrumental good well maybe it is maybe

it isn't but that doesn't seem like that

interesting a question if it turns out

that Justice really is simply a tool to

promote your self-interest well gosh

that's not so exciting if Justice is

really something that's fundamental to

how we ought to live then it better be

an intrinsic good and so he challenges

our Socrates to give us an argument that

Justice is really intrinsically good

luckon then proceeds to outline a few of

justice that he finds initially

plausible and he thinks of as an

alternative to socrates's feet

it's basically what we would Now call a

version of social contract theory or a

contractualist a contractarian theory

its outlines here aren't very specific

so it's hard to pin it down precisely

but the general idea he says is this

maybe we do adopt Justice and rules of

Justice principles of Justice at a

conception of Justice as a virtue really

just as instruments we realize conflict

is bad people get hurt and we don't want

other people to treat us unjustly so we

agree to adopt and abide by rules of

Justice or at least general principles

or General conceptions in order to try

to smooth Human Relationships well if

that's what Justice is it really is just

something like a convention that we

adopt for the sake of achieving our

other aims and so it's at best an

instrumental good now glaucom finds this

a pretty plausible view why shouldn't I

treat you unjustly well because I don't

want you to treat me unjustly a society

where we all agree to abide by rules of

Justice maybe is better for us than a

society where people routinely treat

other people unjustly and so glaucom

says look maybe it turns out that

Justice is a good thing for people but

in fact it's only in this instrumental

way it's kind of like yeah various

medications can be good for people or

certain tools hammers Nails Etc can be

good for people and so on but really

when you come right down to it that

doesn't give it much ethical

significance we don't talk about the

ethics of nails or the ethics of various

other kinds of tools and so if that's

what it is it's just a tool well I mean

it's still a useful tool and we might

want to investigate it think about what

conventions we have to adopt but

nevertheless it seems much weaker than

what Socrates was really claiming

so here is the example he introduces to

try to convince Socrates that at best

it's really just an instrumental good he

says suppose we had something a Ring The

Ring of gaijis which could turn you

invisible he would let you get away with

anything you could commit all sorts of

terrible and unjust Acts and Escape

because you would simply become

invisible and he tells a story of gaijis

who finds this ring and uses it to

commit all sorts of atrocities he

manages to sneak into the palace

unobserved he ends up seducing the

king's wife the queen

he ends up plotting to kill the king and

he gets away with it because any time

that he could be discovered he just

turns the ring and he disappears

well here is glaucom's challenge then

suppose you had the Ring of gaijis what

would you do with it

would you simply use it to further the

cause of Justice or would you use it to

your own advantage and act unjustly use

it to get away with things that

otherwise you couldn't get away with

I know well it's a hard question why

categories she's baffled she's lying

there thinking I don't know what I would

do well I'm not sure what I would do

either but glaucon is convinced that

people would routinely commit injustices

maybe not as bad as gaiji's but

nevertheless what would stop you from

robbing the bank or

doing all sorts of other things sneaking

anywhere you want it

nothing would be off limits to you and

so what would really

what would really govern our actions in

such a case

now he says Socrates let me put the

challenge to you in the strongest

possible form

he says the question really comes down

to this is it better to be just or to

Simply appear to be just and so he says

let's contrast two people one of whom is

a just person always acts justly but is

thought to be unjust and another person

who acts unjustly but is thought by

everyone to be just

which one has a better life

which one is it better to be would you

rather be a just person thought of as

being unjust or would you rather be an

unjust person who people think is just

glaucon says I think it would be much

better to be the unjust person who is

perceived as just after all you're going

to get all sorts of honors people are

going to think very well of you they'll

get the esteem of everyone else they

will hire you because they think you're

acting justly

the person who acts unjustly but is

perceived by everyone to be just is

someone who essentially gets away with

everything and so they can do whatever

they want they can take whatever they

want they can sneak around and go

wherever they want and no one will

recognize that they're doing this

everyone will think they're the perfect

moral ideal they're going to benefit in

all sorts of ways from both the unjust

action and the perception of Justice on

the other hand think about somebody who

acts justly but is perceived by everyone

to be unjust that person is going to be

well thought to have committed all sorts

of crimes that person is going to be

hated they're going to be legally

charged and punished and so one person

is going to essentially have all the

advantages of unjust action and none of

the disadvantages the other person is

going to have all the disadvantages of

just action not taking advantage of

situations when they could but all the

disadvantages of people thinking that

they're unjust

and so which is it better to be Dawkins

says surely it's better to be perceived

as just than to actually be just

now I'd like to give you at this point

socrates's response but he doesn't have

a quick response to glaucom instead he

says this is a hard Challenge and to

respond I have to go back and really

talk in Greater detail about the nature

of the Soul what it's really like to be

a just person or to be an unjust person

but I don't want to do that directly he

says let's take a detour and think about

Justice in the state

now I'm going to talk about that

argument and that move in a separate

video

but before I get to that let's just

observe one thing about this

the idea that there is an analogy

between Justice in the soul in the

psychology essentially of the just

person and Justice in society at large

in the state that's a very bold claim

why should we think that there's any

such analogy there is an idea here that

a state is something like an organism

it's something like a person and so we

can think of a state as analogous to a

person we can think of as a society as

analogous to a single organism

now I think myself that that's a

fundamentally mistaken idea after all I

am an organism a society isn't an

organism a state is not an organism and

it really is better thought of as

something like an ecosystem of organisms

but Socrates pursues that analogy and so

we really need to see how he does it and

where he goes with it

but recognize that it's a contentious

move one that Echoes throughout the

history of philosophy many other people

make it but many people also back away

from it and say wait a minute it's at

this point that something goes

fundamentally wrong in the Republic