Plato: The Immoralist Challenge

Plato: The Immoralist ChallengeOutlineTypes of ValueGlaucons Challenge to Socrates to Defend the Value of JusticeThe Ring of GygesMoral PsychologyThree Type of ValuesIntrinsic Value: something that is valued for its own sake, such as joyInstrumental Value: something that is valued as a means to something else, such as moneyBoth Intrinsic and Instrumental value: something that is valued both for its own sake and as a means to something else, such as healthCritical Points on Types of ValueIt is quite easy to acknowledge that many things are instrumentally valuable that is they are valuable as a means to something else that we desire. It is quite easy to acknowledge that joy is something of intrinsic value, that we value it as a state in itself. Questions: Other than joy is there anything else that is of intrinsic value?Does it really make sense to say that something is both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable?The Basic Question Glaucon RaisesWhere does justice fall in the division of values?Is justice merely something of instrumental value?Is justice something only of intrinsic value?Is justice something that is both intrinsically valuable and instrumentally valuable. Glaucons challenge to Socrates is for him to show that justice is both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable.The basic argumentIn a situation in which one can be unjust without penalty one will choose to be unjust.Justice is only praised for its instrumental value.If one always will choose to be unjust when there is no penalty and justice is only praised for its instrumental value, then justice is not intrinsically valuable.So, justice is not intrinsically valuable. Thus, justice is not both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable.

The Ring of Gyges ISuppose you found a ring which if you turned in a certain direction it made you invisible. As a consequence of being invisible, you can do anything you want without there being a penalty for your actions because you could never be discovered.Would you remain a just person?Glaucon argues that you would not. Ring of Gyges IIIn the challenge Glaucon roughly holds that no one who had the ring of Gyges could remain just for a long period of time. He appears to be arguing that in a situation where there is no penalty for being unjust it possible to corrupt anyone into being unjust. How should we take this claim about moral psychology?The Psychological AssumptionsThe claim that all humans that possess the power to do injustice without penalty rests on two assumptions:

All humans have the same psychological makeup when it comes to performing acts of justice.

The disposition to be just is not our natural disposition. Our natural disposition is to do unjust acts. It is only through the bond of society and its structure of penalties that we are made to have the disposition to be just.An argument from rationality to injusticeIn a situation in which one can perform an unjust act and incur no penalty, all else being equal, doing so would maximize ones self interest. It is always rational to maximize ones self interest. So, in a situation in which one can perform an unjust act and incur no penalty, all else being equal, it is rational for one to do so. Does rationality entail being unjust when there is no penalty?Why justice is only instrumentally valuableBeing just has no value if no one knows that you are just.Justice is only praised because of the value of the reputation it brings to a person.If something is praised only because of the reputation it brings, then that thing is only of instrumental value.So, justice is only of instrumental value. Critique of the instrumental value of justiceIt may be true that justice is praised of others and thus confers on them a good reputation that leads to other benefits.Does it follow from the fact that justice is praised in this way that it has no non-instrumental value?Can we infer from the reasons why people praise something what its total value is?Case to ConsiderLong before we knew of the health benefits that come along with eating certain foods we praised them for their taste.However, once we came up with a theory that could be used to track other positive features of a food, we learned that in addition to their taste they had other things of value.

What should we think about justice?Perhaps it is the same with justice as it is with food.We can only discover the intrinsic value of justice via some theory that discloses its intrinsic value.Our ordinary thoughts on justice only latch on to what we see as its immediate value: escaping punishment, and gaining a good reputation. However, this may only give us its superficial surface value, and not its underlying and intrinsic value?Things to knowWhat is Glaucons challenge?What is the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value?What are the two main arguments used to make the challenge?What is the ring of Gyges?What are the psychological assumptions at play in the ring of Gyges?