This Assignment Tests The Students' Capacity To Relate Moral

This assignment tests the student’s capacity to relate moral questions to their

In the reading Gyges' Ring and Socrates' Dilemma, you have learned about one of the hardest questions in human history, “Why be moral?” Glaucon argues that no one—not even the most upright person—would refuse to live a perfectly unjust life. By perfectly unjust life he suggests doing whatever one pleases without ever being caught and punished. As I suggested in my own example, imagine that you possessed a remote control that freezes time. You could take any amount of money from banks, kill or hurt people you dislike, and more.

The amazing thing about it is that after perpetrating whichever action you like, you unfreeze time and no one will ever know what you have done. In fact, while you practice injustice, you gain a good reputation whereby people think you are a high minded, honest, and great individual. In a 1000-word paper (approximately 4-5 pages) explain why or why not you would use such a remote. If you never had to suffer, you were never punished, and had a great reputation, what exactly would make it morally wrong for you to use the remote that freezes time? Upload as a word document.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of moral wrongdoing with the hypothetical use of a remote control that freezes time presents a compelling challenge to traditional ethics, especially in the context of Glaucon’s challenge as articulated in Plato’s "Republic." Glaucon's argument suggests that humans are inherently motivated by self-interest and that morality is often a social construct designed to inhibit our worst impulses. When contemplating the use of such a device—being able to commit unjust acts without repercussions, punishment, or social judgment—it becomes crucial to analyze whether morality is rooted in external consequences or internal virtues, and what intrinsic factors might inhibit or propel moral conduct under such circumstances.

At first glance, the allure of the remote control appears undeniable. It offers absolute power, unlimited freedom to indulge in dishonest, harmful, or unethical acts without the immediate fear of consequence. From a pragmatic perspective, the allure is reinforced by the assumption that human beings are primarily motivated by self-interest, as Glaucon maintains. If there are no punishments, no social disapproval, and no internal guilt—what moral barrier remains to prevent one from acting unjustly? This aligns with psychological egoism, which posits that humans are fundamentally driven to maximize their own benefit, especially when external sanctions are absent (Holland, 2003).

However, a deeper examination reveals that morality extends beyond external rewards or punishments. Internal moral compass, virtues, personal integrity, and societal norms all contribute to the moral fabric that guides human behavior. Even if external threats of punishment are eradicated temporarily, internal factors such as guilt, shame, fear of internal dissonance, or the desire for genuine reputation could serve as potent internal brakes. Philosophers like Kant argue that moral actions are performed out of duty and adherence to universal moral laws, not just external consequences (Kant, 1785). From Kant’s perspective, the moral worth of an action depends on the intention and the adherence to moral principles, which would remain relevant even if external punishment is eliminated.

Furthermore, the question of whether moral wrongness is inherent or dependent on societal approval is central here. Utilitarians, for example, would assess the morality based on the consequences of such actions—particularly their impact on overall happiness or suffering (Mill, 1863). Even if one could cheat, steal, or harm with impunity, these actions could hamper societal trust, cause emotional suffering, or ultimately diminish one’s own well-being through internal guilt or fear of discovery. The use of the remote could create a paradoxical internal conflict, as engaging in unjust acts might eventually erode personal authenticity, leading to a form of moral alienation (Fromm, 1947).

Furthermore, intrinsic values such as empathy and compassion serve as internal moral constraints that might inhibit the use of such a remote. If a person possesses genuine empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others would make unjust acts—especially harming others—morally reprehensible regardless of external punishment. Consequently, internal virtues like compassion function as moral brakes, diminishing the appeal of using the remote control even when external repercussions are nullified (Nussbaum, 2001).

On the other hand, Glaucon’s challenge posits that humans are naturally inclined toward injustice if they can get away with it. This conception aligns with psychological studies indicating that in anonymous settings or when moral accountability is removed, people tend to act more selfishly (Zimbardo, 2007). In laboratory experiments such as the Milgram experiment, participants obeyed authority figures even when their actions conflicted with personal morals, illustrating that external authority plays a significant role in moral compliance. Remove accountability, and there is a heightened risk that self-interest might override internal moral considerations.

Yet, some argue that the capacity for moral reflection and internal virtue remains resilient even in hypothetical scenarios involving complete impunity. For example, individuals committed to moral principles might refuse to use the remote because doing so would violate their sense of integrity. Moreover, engaging in unjust acts could lead to psychological consequences such as cognitive dissonance—the mental discomfort experienced when actions conflict with beliefs—ultimately deterring moral corruption (Festinger, 1957). This internal mechanism can serve as a moral anchor, preventing individuals from engaging in unjust acts despite the absence of external consequences.

Ultimately, the moral wrongness or rightness of using such a remote hinges on one's conception of morality—whether it is externally driven by societal rules and consequences, or internally guided by virtues and personal integrity. If morality is primarily external, then the absence of punishment may render the remote's use morally permissible or at least more tempting. However, if morality involves internal virtues, character, and adherence to moral principles, then using the remote—even with no repercussions—remains morally wrong because it compromises one’s integrity and the cultivation of virtues that constitute true moral excellence (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

In conclusion, the hypothetical scenario of having a remote that enables unjust acts without punishment invites profound reflection on the nature of morality itself. While external factors influence moral behavior, internal virtues such as integrity, empathy, and adherence to moral principles serve as enduring constraints against immoral conduct. The potential internal remorse, dissonance, and damage to personal character underscore why such a remote would be morally wrong to use, regardless of external consequences or appearances. Ultimately, morality is as much about internal harmony as it is about external sanctions, and true ethical conduct involves honoring these inner moral commitments even when external accountability is absent.

References

• Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (J. Ackrill, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Fromm, E. (1947). The Art of Being. Harper & Brothers.
• Holland, J. H. (2003). The Ethical Foundations of Human Rights. Routledge.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.
• Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House Trade Paperbacks.