A philosophy question
I recently read an interview between Maynard James Keenan and a philosophy professor at some University or another. It was horrible as far as interviews go, but I supposed I can forgive him since he's in the philosophy department, rather than the journalism school.
In it, the prof brought up an ancient Greek story. Apparently, "The Lord of the Rings" borrowed from it a little, because it's a thread that runs throughout the whole story. The story goes like this:
Imagine you have a good man and an evil man. There are two rings, and these rings allow them to put it on, turn it a half-turn, and they will become invisible. (Told you it would be familiar.) In the end, both men are evil, because with nobody to judge their actions, they revert to a state of doing whatever suits them.
Pretty much any philosophy professor anywhere will agree that any man who puts on such a ring would become corrupted. The two people who discussed it in an interview agreed that it gives everyone free reign to act like a complete bastard.
Naturally, this got me thinking. What would I do if I had such a ring? In other words, is it a foregone conclusion that I would become evil? At first I thought I wouldn't. Would I suddenly run around town, robbing, setting fire to the Louis Vuitton stores, and pantsing Bush everyday until he leaves office? And as fun as the Bush thing sounds, I don't think I would. But I knew that a smart philosophy professor wouldn't let it rest there. He'd probably ask me what I would do when I was invisible. In other words, what is there that I would feel comfortable doing if I was invisible, that I wouldn't do if I was visible. It's the old thing my mom and everyone's mom tried to drive home about being a good person, even when nobody is watching. And apart from wearing a bathing suit, I couldn't think of anything I'd do invisible that I wouldn't do visible.
So I suppose that's my philosophical question of the day. Is it possible that there are people who wouldn't ever "twist the ring," so to speak. A good man is transformed into an evil man, because it's a power that corrupts. An evil man enjoys it because he can get away with more evil. But what about an indifferent man? One who tries to be decent, quite often fails, and figures that's part of life.
Thoughts?
- IntricateGirl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 174 reads
Oooooo, good one, IG.
I'll probably have to come back and add additional comments because I'm supposed to be working and this post of yours has really gotten my mind churning.
The first thing that comes to mind is the indifferent man. I think that, eventually, the indifferent man will use the ring and, eventually, he will use the ring for evil, just for the sake of evil.
I think the indifferent man will start out by trying to do something decent by using the power. But I don't think that you can do anything decent with a power like this - invisibility. If what you do must be hidden from sight then you are not doing a good thing. Now, I'm not talking about little good deeds like cleaning someone's house when they aren't around or doing little chores that you don't take credit for. (But, in fact, if you sneak into someone's house to clean it when they are gone so that you won't be seen then, you have done something wrong by entering their house without permission.) I'm talking about doing something that you'd need to be invisible to do in order to get it accomplished. If you have to be invisible to do something, then you must be doing something that other people don't want you to do. Therefore, even if some deserving person does benefit from the deed, there will be others who suffer from the deed. Am I making sense?
Anyway, once the indifferent man succeeds at doing good while, at the same time doing bad, I think he will probably feel a sense of power that he will need to reinforce from time to time or that he just will not be able to refrain from using. He will probably begin to feel that the ends justify the means and he will begin ordering the world as he wants it to be. Whether he begins to use the power expressly to make people suffer or not, the fact that he will eventually begin using it to control others is, in itself, evil. And when his control is resisted I think he will begin punishing those who resist his will. For a long time, he'll tell himself that he's just doing all this for the good of others but eventually he'll stop caring whether or not any good comes from his actions - he'll only care whether or not things are done as he wishes.
LOL! But that's not
LOL! But that's not indifferent. I like to think, sitting here in this hypothetical situation, that if I had such a ring, I'd try it out a few times, simply because it's cool and I've never been invisible before. I'd know that I couldn't tell anyone about such a ring, because of what you said. But in the end, I think it would sit in a drawer, completely unused, like a unique little trinket. I *think* that once the novelty of being invisible wore off, I'd be bored by it. And I mean "being invisible", not using the invisibility as a way to accomplish something else.
What you described is what would happen to the good man. They want to accomplish good, but they are corrupted by power. But I'm asking if there is truly anyone that 1) doesn't seek power, and 2) if they attain power, they don't want it.
Actually, I was going on your definition of indifferent.
But maybe I was reading it wrong. You said, "But what about an indifferent man? One who tries to be decent, quite often fails, and figures that's part of life." Maybe you were meaning to talk about 2 different kinds of people.
Anyway, I agree, a good person would also fall into the same trap, probably just sooner than the indifferent person.
I phrased it poorly. What I
I phrased it poorly. What I mean is someone that means to be a good person, but doesn't put much effort into it. For example, if we were talking about recycling, an indifferent person might recycle aluminum cans, but that's more so he can get his deposit back than anything else. They don't go out of their way to be good, nor do they go out of their way to do bad. They are just sort of indifferent towards trying to make a difference either way. It's easy to look at someone like, say Mother Teresa, and declare her a "good person". On the other end of the spectrum, you've got Hitler, and it's easy to put him in the evil category. But what about those who aren't actively trying to be good or evil?
Modifying my position a little- I think that an indifferent person would probably fall into the same trap. I think most people end up as indifferent because they don't believe they can change anything. Give them power and control, and it'll warp them the same as anyone else.
Yeah, that's actually what I thought you meant.
I just didn't explain why I thought the indifferent person would fall into that trap. I agree with you that "most people end up as indifferent because they don't believe they can change anything." But it they were given the power I think they would, eventually, try to use that power for good.
I think they'd use it for
I think they'd use it for good too. But then ultimately, that would get warped.
Well how about the "humble" man eh?
http://bloggerparty.com/blog/sassys
I honestly believe a humble man would be the only man that could withstand the pressure of "guilt free" freedom. A truly humble man would not require nor would he crave the dubios mental notoriety. The path to hell is paved with good intentions, so to do some good for others should then become a guilty pleasure? Hmmm. (I have no clue what the hell I'm talking about...I am attempting to "Philosoffie" and I really suck at it:D
You might just be onto
You might just be onto something. A humble man would understand that they cannot solve all problems, and would realize that it would only corrupt him.
However a humble man would not shirk the challenge!
http://bloggerparty.com/blog/sassys
I am betting that ego would want in here too...and humble and ego, ergo, should the twain meet? See? I can and will confuse you when I've only had one cup of coffee.
I think the humble man would fall into the same trap that
my indifferent man would fall into. It's not the "power corrupts" question - really, it's the type of power, I think. Ah hell....gotta go. Back soon.
Possibly. But then what PW
Possibly. But then what PW said comes into play. The mere desire to help, but needing to be invisible, destroys the goodness. A truly good man does not seek attention for their good acts, but I believe they don't avoid it either. Think about all those stories that come out around Christmas time. Somebody will be out ringing a bell for the Salvation Army, and the pot gets back to their headquarters with a stack of $100 bills in it. It always makes the news, and the person who put them in there had to have the thought in the back of his mind that it would make the news, or at least get people talking. In a way, it's attention seeking through avoiding attention.
I think that a truly humble man would look at the ring, understand the implications, tell the person that they are not sure they could handle the power, and refuse it. I think a humble man understands his strengths and limitations, and therefore doesn't have "challenges". They see it as either a task they can handle, or one that they can't. Maybe, anyway. I struggle with humility.
Ok, I warned you I would be back.
And I wish I would have talked about this first because I believe it is essential to this discussion, and that is, the type of power that is given to a person.
I think that the particular type of power given in this example - invisibility - can only lead to evil deeds. As I mentioned earlier, if you have to be invisible to do something, it means that you are doing something that someone does not want you to do. Even something as innocuous as entering someone's house without their knowledge to clean it or repair it is a violation of their privacy and their space.
Ir you have the means to help people, money or a skill or whatever, you can always use that means anonymously or you can refocus whatever publicity you happen to attract. If you have to become invisible in order to have the means or in order to acquire the means, then you are doing something that is essentially evil in order to acquire those means.
However, lets say you gave someone the magical power to change the properties of physical things. Not sure how to describe this one (I'm a litte brain dead this morning)....for example: they could change an old soda can into an apple or an old plastic bag into a house. Now, there's a power that has the potential for both good and evil. The truly good person would not use that power to change nickels into dollars, because that would be hurting the economy and because, frankly, dollars just aren't the answer - but that's another whole paragraph or two. But the truly good person would use that power to change lots and lots of old soda cans into lots and lots of apples to feed the poor and they would turns lots and lots of plastic bags into houses for the homeless. And the truly good would derive enough satisfaction out of the good that he was able to do so that he would not need to turn glass into diamonds for his own enrichment. The indifferent person might grow quickly bored with churning out apples and houses and might decide that it would be much more fulfilling to enrich himself and his friends with the trappings of wealth - the dollars, the diamonds, the gold, etc. And the truly bad person would, of course, churn out dollars, diamonds, gold and weapons.
Now, I don't really fit into the category of a truly good person. As much as I would like to say I do, I can't. Because, while I'd be turning acres of old soda cans into apples and mountains of old plastic bags into houses, I'd also be turning quite a few pieces of glass into diamonds and a whole bunch of nickels into dollars for my own enrichment. Oh yeah, baby, I'd be living in a certain 14,000 sq. ft. house in Lake Tahoe, waited on hand and foot by a well-paid staff, living the life of Riley while I worked my magic on the garbage dumps of the world.
And that's why philosophers
And that's why philosophers bring up this exact question. The power of invisibility has no inherent good because of the exact reasons you gave. Different powers, different results.
Hmmmm...that begs the question,
why bring up this question at all? But maybe there are other people that can see a different side? Oh....duh....maybe it's just a lesson? Like I said earlier, I'm a little brain dead today - it's been one of those weeks. I better just shut up.
It's pretty universally
It's pretty universally accepted amongst philosophy professors that turning an invisibility ring would result in evil. They like to debate the "why". But I wanted to question the whole idea of it to begin with. Is there anyone who could resist the ring, or all we all doomed to grab it and become evil? I like the answer of a humble man, and I'm curious what a philosophy professor would say about that.
Well, I don't really see much difference between a good man
and a humble man. In fact, I find it difficult to separate the two. If a good man is not humble then it would stand to reason that he is self-important and if he is a self-important man then the majority of his acts will be to the benefit of self.
I do like your idea that a humble man would recognize the dangers and realize it is not up to him to undertake such a power. But I think that is the same reason that a good man would not use that kind of power.
But I do disagree with Sassys' take that a humble man would be up to the challenge. Because, being humble and good, he would realize that in committing the evil deed he would negate the good deed.
As for your actual question, which I seem to have completely skippped over (sorry), that's a damned interesting one. Yes, the good and humble man would most probably resist the ring under ordinary circumstances. But given extraordinary circumstances, I think even the average good and humble man would actually commit an evil deed in order to avert or cure a very horrendous problem. That old question, 'would you take 1 life in order to save 1,000 lives' would come into play and I think many very good people would choose to take the 1 life.
And yet, there's the next question. If you refuse to take that 1 life and, consequently, 1,000 people lose their lives, have you done evil, anyway?
And then, there are the essentialy good - and not necessrily humble - people. Maybe just a step down from the truly good that would refuse to use the ring - maybe just a 1/2 step. And I would put myself in this category - or maybe I'd put myself 2 steps down. Anyway, I think that these people would have a much more difficult time resisting the ring. I think that the degree of evil done would come into play for these people - like, if I steal money from someone that has plenty to help someone who has nothing then it'll be ok but I won't kill anyone. And yet, no matter who you steal from and no matter how much value the owner places on the thing stolen, it's still theft and it's still an evil deed. And there's where I come in. Because I can absolutely see myself stealing from someone who has more than what I consider their share in order to help someone who has no share. And then, I can see myself helping myself to some of the abundance because I think some people have more than their share and then I'm just whizzing down that slippery slope to pure and utter evil for evil's sake.
Hmm. I'll have to ponder
Hmm. I'll have to ponder whether there can be a humble person who isn't good, and vice versa.
And then there's this question;
what is truly good and what is not truly good? I mean, really, would it be "not truly good" for a person with this magical power to enrich themselves - as long as they did no harm to others?
Shoot....work keeps getting in the way. Hmmmm...that's probably a good thing. :-D
This gets into a whole new
This gets into a whole new area. You've got those who say there is no such thing as an unselfish deed. To me, the concept feels wrong, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.
Then, there are those who study Wicca. They follow what's called the Rede. "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." But this is hotly debated, even within their circles. Is it possible to do no harm to anyone or anything? The very act of breathing takes in the tiniest viruses, and either you destroy it, or it destroys you. And even if you exclude microscopic germs, is it truly possible to live without causing harm to anyone? Or is there a level where it's considered "acceptable harm"? Let me give a really tough example. What if you were in charge of awarding government contracts. You could give a contract to a company that has a stellar record for accomplishing tasks cheaply, efficiently, and humanely. In the process, it would put Halliburton out of work. And as hard as it is to feel sorry for them, you know that your actions will bankrupt some people working there. Including some father of three who was out of work for six months before getting the job, who hates the company, but has small mouths to feed. But allowing them to continue is such a loathsome idea to you, and you want to reward the company whose has good business practices. So what do you do? The answer is easy, except that when you get deep down into the individual details, it's not as easy.
I heard a phrase recently that I love, and I'm adopting into my vocabulary. It was, "In a world where black and white make rainbows..." Apologies for the moral relativism, but it's hard to justify most actions as strictly good or strictly evil.
I don't really see selfishness as always bad.
So, yeah, I do agree that there is no such thing as an unselfish deed. And here's where things just go completely out of round, because what I consider good selfishness another person might consider interference and bad selfishness and they would be right.
For example; I prefer to generate positive energy and I believe that the positive energy I generate encourages people around me to generate positive energy and they encourage the people around them, etc., etc., and therefore the world is better in all things because of the positive energy that I generate. But, there are people who believe that negative energy is better for the Universe and they generate negative energy for all the same reasons that I generate positive energy. And since I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Universe, I don't know that I'm right, I only believe that I'm right. So, in actuality, I could be hurting rather than helping and I know that this is a possibility. Yet, I prefer positive energy and so I encourage it's growth - even when it is a struggle to do so. And that is selfish, even though I think that I'm doing a good thing.
Now, understand that I am using positive and negative as 'my take' on energy patterns - you could also call it high frequency and low frequency energy or whatever - positive and negative is just easier to say and type.
Wow, this is deep!
Impressive, folks!
I'm not sure what I'd do with the power of invisibility. I wouldn't steal stuff. The things I might want to do, like get an inside look at people I admire, would be restricted by practicalities. I couldn't be gone for days at a time while I traveled (for free, since an invisible person would be able to get on aircrafts and such without paying - unethical, for sure) to get close to this famous person or that one. And where would I go on a crowded aircraft to get my invisible ass out of the way? And I would be horribly bored, since I couldn't read a book or anything without attracting attention to the magically floating piece of literature...
I can't think of any good I could be doing as an invisible person. The only thing I'd be good for is spying, and in order for spying to do any good I'd have to report back to someone who could do something about whatever I found out. And that means fessing up to owning the ring, which would mean someone with far more evil intentions than me would snatch it up in 2.3 seconds.
The lure of being invisible is in either doing bad things, like stealing stuff unseen, or listening in on conversations that you wouldn't normally be privy too. I suppose that you could use those conversations to benefit you monetarily in some cases (always in unethical, immoral, or illegal ways) or you could hang out around people you know and see what they are saying about you. THAT'S a pathway to pain for sure.
Yeah, so you know what? Invisibility, not so good. Give me a ring that lets me fly or be immortal or something.
www.labelitorloseit.com discount code = tiger
read me!
Brenna
check out www.snarkymoms.com
Eek. No thank you to the
Eek. No thank you to the immortality ring. I always say that I don't welcome death, but I don't fear it either. I want to get about 70 years on this rock, give or take 20, and keel over in front of a whale while ice diving off the coast of Antarctica. In other words, let me experience everything, then blow this popsicle stand.