I use the following clip from the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode “The Anonymous Donor” (May 2007) to discuss psychological and ethical egoism, and the role of motivation in moral action. Larry David is at a ceremony celebrating donors to an environmental group, Larry being one of them, and his name is prominently displayed on one of the walls. The other donor is “anonymous,” but virtually everyone at the event knows it is actually Larry’s friend Ted. Ted seems to have managed to appear virtuous and just, while actually being selfish—a desirable situation, according to Glaucon in Plato’s Ring of Gyges myth.
Why be good? Are humans inherently selfish or altruistic? Or are they somewhere in between? What is the nature of human nature? Questions like these are discussed in class before we begin moral philosophy. The episode above is an engaging introduction to this topic. David is initially quite impressed with himself for his donation, calling it “Pretty good. Pretty, pretty good,” with his usual ironic self-congratulation. But he soon realizes that his donation is not as virtuous-looking as the generosity of the “anonymous” donor, the presumed height of altruism: giving to others without the desire for recognition. Worse, the other donor is Ted Danson, his longstanding antagonist, who claims to have “told only a couple of people…” including Larry’s wife. This sends Larry into his near-perpetual state of righteous indignation, only in this case it might be warranted.
It is not irrelevant that David is an extreme curmudgeon akin to Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, the spiteful man who thinks his liver hurts, and has numerous gems like “Living past forty is indecent, vulgar, immoral! Now answer me, sincerely, honestly, who lives past forty? I’ll tell you who does: fools and scoundrels” (Dostoevsky 3, 5). That’s hilarious, and awful, and about as spot-on Larry David impersonation as it gets.
Before we watch this clip in class, students have read the Ring of Gyges section of The Republic and have written a reflection online answering a variant of the following prompt:
If you knew there would be no adverse consequences to your actions morally speaking, would you behave differently than you do now? How, if at all, would the lack of consequences change you? Explain.
These reflections are then shared in small groups in class. In the Ring of Gyges myth, Glaucon takes on the burden of countering Socrates’ claim that it is always better to be just rather than unjust. Students are surprised that Socrates’ view was less commonly held than the one proffered by Glaucon. Glaucon continues Thrasymachus’ case that “those who practice it [justice] do so unwillingly and from want of power to commit injustice” (359b). In other words, the “just” person is no different than the unjust, as would be revealed in the similarities in their reactions to possessing a ring of invisibility. All social veneer would be removed, and our true nature would be disclosed. From this assumption, any presumed good act would also really be motivated by selfish desires, namely the desire to appear better than one actually is, and the avoidance of bad acts would be solely driven by fear of consequences.
Students often recognize on their own that this is the essence of a concept we introduce before showing the video: psychological egoism. Psychological egoism states that, descriptively, it is a fact of human nature that we are selfish (unjust) even in putative acts of generosity. Many are initially pulled in this direction, finding Glaucon’s case compelling. But Glaucon extends this to justify ethical egoism, the notion that prescriptively we should be selfish (unjust); the life of the unjust is, after all, far better than the life of the just (365e). On this view, to the extent that one can speak of justice, it is whatever is in the interest of those in power, a variant of might makes right. Most students begin to push back here, and some see connections to current events: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake… that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time” (part of Stephen Miller’s response to questions about whether the US would rule out military force to take Greenland. Yes, Greenland! 1/5/2026 on CNN with Jake Tapper). Examples like this elicit discussion and some debate over the tensions between theory and practice and what the proper role of philosophy should be in the “real world.” Also, we briefly consider whether it is ever acceptable to include the phrase “since the beginning of time” when referring to human activities. It is not.
Here are some of the questions posed in class before, during, and after the small group discussions. The timing of the questions varies depending upon student participation and engagement.
- What is Glaucon’s ideal and why? Does this support psychological egoism, ethical egoism, or both? Note that Glaucon does not hold the view he presents. He is, rather, attempting to ‘steelman’ Thrasymachus’ case, which he thinks is the majority view. This point is relevant in discussions on argumentation and perspective-shifting.
- Do Ted’s and Larry’s characters embody the ideal considered by Glaucon? Both appear to be doing good and succeeding in this. What role, if any, should motivations play here? What role, if any, do the presumed consequences play?
- How does the Gyges tale counter the Chinese philosopher Mencius’ view on human nature as inherently good in his thought experiment of the child about to fall into a well? This text is either read prior to or alongside the Plato reading. Mencius assumes anyone would immediately, and without thought—and thus, with no time for conscious reflection regarding motivations for reward or negative consequences of not acting—reach out and save a child about to fall into a well and die.
- And of course, we return to the opening question above: “If you had a ring of invisibility…?” Some students will admit that they have amended their responses to the ring thought experiment after discussion with peers and deeper analyses of both Glaucon’s and Mencius’ arguments.
I have presented a version of the Ring of Gyges thought experiment to my children over various stages in their lives, and I let students know what their reactions were, after they have offered their own responses to the questions above. It is noteworthy that when my children were 7 and 9, they said the following, which I immediately wrote down: “Take it to a magic show and do tricks” and “Give (or sell it for a little money) to a scientist to see how it works.” Awesome! Great kids. But, when the same kids were 9 and 11, their moral intuitions took a turn away from selflessness: “Rob a bank” and “Become a hide-and-seek champion.” The latter is fine, but has since been updated to “rob a bank” as well.
Student responses to these questions can be all over the place, but the majority still veer toward burglary of some sort with the caveat that the way they would do it, there really would be “no victims,” as large banks are FDIC insured, for example. Much discussion on this inevitably ensues, especially given the recent justifications of “microlooting” from the rich, and the mixed results of the ends-justifies-the-means Effective Altruism movement. Then I remind them that in the story, Gyges is just a regular shepherd. Within a sentence or two of having discovered this ring, Glaucon says he seduces the queen, kills the king, and takes over the kingdom (the curiosity of seductive powers following invisibility is only briefly covered). The larger point here is not that some otherwise just people will behave differently in some circumstances if they feel free of consequences, but that all of us would, and about morally significant behaviors.
We then return to Larry and Ted and their motivations to do good. Perhaps there is not a symmetrical relation between acting justly in order to obtain good consequences and avoiding injustice to avoid negative consequences. In other words, Mencius might be correct that virtually everyone would feel an immediate and empathic inclination to help without concern of consequences. At the same time, Glaucon might be right that we only avoid injustice out of fear. In all my classes, this topic is one of the most engaging for students. Rarely is there enough time in a single session to adequately address even one of the questions above.
Suggested Readings
- Plato. 1989. Plato: The Republic Book II, The Collected Dialogues. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cains. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Mencius. 2016. On Human Nature, An Online Teaching Translation. Robert Eno, Version 1.0, May 2016.
Other Readings and Resources
- Fyodor Dostoevsky. 1991. Notes From Underground and The Grand Inquisitor, Translated by Ralph E. Matlaw, Penguin, NY, New York.
- James Rachels. 1971. “Egoism and Moral Skepticism,” from A New Introduction to Philosophy, ed. Steven M. Cahn, Harper & Rowe.
- Ayn Rand. 1964. Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New American Library, 1964.
The Teaching and Learning Video Series is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using video clips in teaching philosophy. All posts in the series are indexed by author and topic here. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the series editor, Gregory Convertito, at gconvertito.ph@gmail.com.
Chris A. Kramer
Chris Kramer is Assistant Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Santa Barbara City College. He wrote his dissertation on “Subversive Humor”, half about humor, half about oppression. Readers will laugh and cry, but mostly cry, and mostly because they are reading a dissertation; what has become of their lives?
