Invisibility and Morality
What if you could do whatever you wanted and get away with it? What would you do?
The Ring of Gyges
In Plato’s Republic there is a story referred to by Glaucon, the brother of Plato. It’s a myth about a man who finds a golden ring (called the ring of Gyges), which gave him the ability to become invisible. In the myth, the character uses the ring to seduce the queen, kill the king and name himself king.
The question that Glaucon raises is whether or not a person could have enough virtue to resist the temptation to commit immoral actions if there was absolutely no chance of it being discovered. Does our personal morality keep us in line? Or is it the fear of being caught and having to suffer the consequences? Is morality merely a social construct? Do we do the right thing simply because we are afraid of what would happen if others would find out?
It’s a question that people have wrestled with for centuries. Some have taken to film to explore the question, like in 2000’s Hollow Man starring Kevin Bacon. Others have had the discussion in terms of what superpower would they like to have. Still others have pondered it on their own, or in philosophy class, or sitting around the bar. I’m not much of a philosopher — I’ve taken a few classes, read a few books and spent some time thinking… maybe that does make me a philosopher, I don’t know. Regardless, is it possible for a person to maintain morality in a situation in which there are no consequences?
The question was posed to Socrates in Republic, and, ultimately, he concludes that it is not social constructs that should help us maintain our morality, but whether or not we remain in control of ourselves on a rational level. Does it make rational sense for us to commit this act even if we don’t have to suffer the consequences?
Guilt
What role does guilt have in the Church? There are some who would argue that the church plays on our guilt as a way to pacify us. In fact, there’s even a term, “Catholic Guilt,” to described the supposed excess of guilt felt by Catholics — current and lapsed. But is guilt a worthwhile enterprise for the Church? Is it something that the Church should be using to keep people in line? I don’t think so.
Clearly, there are times in our lives when we do something wrong. Guilt is a way of bringing us back on track — whether we see it as a social construct or as a result of our religious background. Guilt is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if you never experience it, then there’s a good chance you are a sociopath… or psychopath… I’m not really sure what the difference is.
However, there are some who would play on guilt as a way of getting what they want — that’s called manipulation. You know what I’m talking about — the commercials that show the sad, shaking dogs at the shelter, the ones who try to raise money for their organization with sad pictures and sob stories. I’m looking at you Sarah McLachlan.
Unfortunately, we do see some of that in the church, but there’s something that the church has to offer that goes beyond guilt; it’s called grace.
Offering Grace
Grace is not a free pass. Grace is not the ring of invisibility that helps us get away with things. We can’t go about our lives doing whatever we want and then run back to grace when we get caught. Grace goes beyond that. Yes, grace is there when we fall short. Not as a safety net, but as a reminder of God’s love for us. Guilt should not compel us to do what is right; grace should.
So, if you could be invisible and get away with whatever you want, what kind of life would you lead? Would you be reckless and do the things that you couldn’t get away with otherwise, or would you live a life full of grace?
