Prince_Imrahil
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 820
A common idea brought up in philosophical discussions of morality is whether someone who would face no consequences of immoral behaviour would remain moral. Plato uses The Ring of Gyges example to illustrate how any man that would come upon such a device (an invisiblity granting ring) would abandon all his moral codes and virtues of character for self-interest with no consequence.
So since it is silly to attempt to look at this from a point of view of whether a society would have morals if there were no negative consequences due to actions (they'd ne unnecesary if there was no negative results) I would like to keep this on the level that Plato uses: if you, or an individual, had the ability to act immorally (cheat, steal, fullfill all your wants and needs at the expense of others) and not face any consequences, would you?
Or do you think its possible that a person can have enough strength of character to not do bad with such a power (say invisibility) just to uphold their own moral beliefs?
(for instance, if a normal person had clark kents powers, would he be a superman or a super self-serving individual?)
So since it is silly to attempt to look at this from a point of view of whether a society would have morals if there were no negative consequences due to actions (they'd ne unnecesary if there was no negative results) I would like to keep this on the level that Plato uses: if you, or an individual, had the ability to act immorally (cheat, steal, fullfill all your wants and needs at the expense of others) and not face any consequences, would you?
Or do you think its possible that a person can have enough strength of character to not do bad with such a power (say invisibility) just to uphold their own moral beliefs?
(for instance, if a normal person had clark kents powers, would he be a superman or a super self-serving individual?)