Morality In Socrates 'The Ring Of Gyges'

661 Words3 Pages
If the opportunity arose, where no consequences were given for someone’s actions, do you think that individual will still commit an unfavorable action such as killing for his own personal need? In “The Ring of Gyges” the disposition of justice is called into question. As humans continue to live we must contemplate the true driving force for our morality. A discussion between Socrates and Glaucon is one main focal point into explaining the differences in how humans truly established their morality. Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness. The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:…show more content…
The perfectly unjust life, is more pleasant than the perfectly just life. Glaucon describes both the just and unjust man with examples of the completely unjust man, who indulges all his desires, is respected and rewarded with all his need while no one is the wiser of all his wrong doings and is seen as someone who can do no wrong. The completely just man, on the other spectrum, is scorned and looked down upon and even hated for doing good this is because the perfectly just person does not do just things for recognition but solely for the sake in doing
Open Document