Question

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 Gyges was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, Gyges 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, to send their monthly report about the flocks to the king. Into their assembly Gyges came with the ring on his finger. As he was sitting among them, Gyges chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, whereupon 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 outward and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result—when he turned the collet inward, he became invisible; when outward, he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen as one of the messengers to be sent to the court. As soon as he arrived, he seduced the queen, and, with her help, conspired against the king, 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 anyone 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 anyone 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 those who argue as I have been supposing will say that they are right. If you could imagine anyone 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.

•    What would Aristotle, Kant, and Mill each do if they had such a ring?

•    What would you do with such a ring?

Answer 1

1. Kant and his Deontological morals says that one should follow up on standards which a man wishes to be universalized; that nobody should make a special case of themselves. For this situation Kant would favor doing what he anticipate that others will do.
   
   For Aristotle, the capacity of people is something special to them; since the one of a kind normal for people is the capacity to reason, he says that the capacity of a human is "the movement of the spirit as per reason."The great "ideals" (boldness, equity, restraint, judiciousness, liberality, empathy, and so forth.) are things that enable us to satisfy our capacity well?Without creating ethics we can't live well the life of reason. So Aristotle would have contemplated out every one of the conceivable outcomes and made a move as needs be.
   
   As indicated by Mill, the evidence that bliss is great (and along these lines alluring) is that individuals want it. Utilitarians contend that, since every single good esteem are in respect to social or individual decision, no generally substantial good standards hold for every person. As indicated by J. S. Plant and The utilitarian says that one ought to do the activity that outcomes in the best measure of joy for the best number of individuals. So according to Mill. he ought to have kept the ring and utilized it too increment his bliss.

2. To start with, I may first go searching for in the background bits of knowledge into the workings of natural forces. I would turn into a concealed observer in the White House and Pantagon, WTC, at worldwide exchange summits and corporate central station, among cartels and incognito power merchants. Furnished with my new learning, I would come to ponder social orders and the lip services imperceptible to everybody without my forces. Protecting my incognito leeway, I would utilize my unequaled access to data to fabricate a notoriety, wealth, even a little insight. In parallel to this, there would be an unspecified amount of immature voyeurism including anybody or anything that took my favor. Expecting I survived this stage, I may then ask: would it be a good idea for me to advance past perception vigorously? Would it be a good idea for me to just take whatever I need, at whatever point I can escape with it? Would it be advisable for me to choose myself judge and killer, and dispose of the most exceedingly bad of the most noticeably bad of humankind, as I saw fit? Would it be a good idea for me to stop to see myself as an individual from mankind? After some time, I speculate the response to the greater part of these inquiries would move toward becoming "yes." If I didn't discard the ring in dread and aversion - and on the off chance that I didn't do this without a moment's delay, I never would - I would invest increasingly energy shrouded, living by the standards imperceptibility enabled me to make. In the end, I would quit taking the ring off completely. I would exist inconspicuous. My activities would appear to the world more like odd bits of chance than anything completely human. After some time, that is the way I would feel about them as well. I would pass on wearing the ring, and my body could never be found.