Superphysics
Dharma Versus Adharma
6 minutes • 1090 words
Table of contents
Superphysics Note
The Three Kinds of Positives
I thought I was ending the discussion. But in reality, it proved to be only a beginning. Glaucon is always the most pugnacious. He was dissatisfied at Thrasymachus’ retirement and wanted to battle it out.
You have not persuaded us that to be dharmic is always better than to be adharmic. There are 3 kinds of positives:
- Those which are desired for their own sakes, independently of their consequences.
Examples are: harmless pleasures and enjoyments. These delight us, even if nothing follows from them.
- Those which are desirable in themselves and for their results.
Examples are knowledge, sight, health.
- Those that do us good even if we regard them as disagreeable.
Examples are: gymnastics, the care of the sick, the physician’s art, and the various ways of money-making. We only choose them for some result that flows from them. Where is dharma in these 3 classes?
In the highest class—among those Positives which a person desires for their own sake, and for the sake of their results.
But others think that dharma is in the troublesome third class, among goods pursued for the sake of rewards and reputation, but in themselves are disagreeable.
Yes, I know. This was Thrasymachus’ thesis when he censured dharma and praised adharma. But I am too stupid to be convinced by him.
Thrasymachus seems to me, like a snake who had been charmed by your voice. But I want to know:
- what is dharma
- how it inwardly works in the soul
I will:
- revive Thrasymachus’ argument and speak of the common view of the nature of dharma
- show that all men who practise dharma do so against their will as a natural consequence, and not as a good
- argue that this makes it reasonable to kill the adharmic as being better than killing the dharmic, though I do not think so.
I want you to praise dharma and censure adharma.
The Tale of Gyges Proves that Dharma is Natural
I shall start with the nature and origin of dharma. They say that by nature:
- doing adharma is good
- suffering from adharma is evil
- evil is greater than the good.
Laws and mutual covenants arise after men get tired of the adharma that they do to each other. They call whatever is ordained by law as lawful and just. They refer to the law as the origin and nature of dharma.
- The best is to do adharma but not be punished.
- The worst is to suffer adharma without the power of retaliation.
Dharma is a compromise or middle point between the best and the worst. It is:
- not a virtue, but a lesser evil
- honoured by the inability of men to do adharma because no one will ever submit to such an adharmic agreement.
Those who practise dharma do so involuntarily because they do not have the power to be adharmic.
If the dharmic and adharmic had the power to do what they want, then:
- the dharmic will do dharmic actions
- the adharmic will do adharmic actions
The dharmic will see his own action as good, just as the adharmic sees his own action as good. They are only diverted into dharmic actions by the force of law.
This freedom may be given to them as a power that was possessed by Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian.
Gyges was a shepherd under the king of Lydia. An earthquake opened up the earth where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he went inside the opening and saw a hollow brazen horse with doors. He saw inside a dead body with only a golden ring. He took this ring and went back up.
Shepherds meet regularly to send their monthly report on the flocks to the king. He went to this meeting wearing the ring. He happened to turn the ring and instantly he became invisible.
They began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. Astonished, he turned the ring outwards and reappeared. He tried this several times becoming invisible and visible again.
He then applied to be a court messenger. As soon as he arrived, he seduced the queen. With her help, he slew the king and took the kingdom.
Suppose that there were 2 such magic rings, one for the dharmic man and another for the adharmic.
No one would have such an iron nature as to do no wrong. No one would:
- keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take it,
- not go into houses and sleep with anyone that he likes, or
- kill or release from prison anyone he wanted.
He would be like a God among men. Therefore, the the actions of the dharmic would be as the actions of the adharmic.
This is a great proof that a man is dharmic, not willingly or because he thinks that dharma is any good to him individually.
A man is dharmic as a natural consequence, because whenever anyone thinks that he can safely be adharmic, then he is adharmic.
Everyone believes that adharma is far more profitable than dharma. If anyone gets this power of becoming invisible but does not do anything wrong, then he would be thought as a most wretched idiot. Although he would be praised from a fear that they too might suffer adharma.
Glaucon’s Thought Experiment on the Adharmic Pretending to be Dharmic
To judge the life of the dharmic and adharmic, we must isolate them.
Let the adharmic man be entirely adharmic, and the dharmic man entirely dharmic.
First, let the adharmic be like other masters of craft, like the skillful pilot or physician. They know intuitively their own powers and keep within their limits. If they fail, they can recover themselves.
Let the adharmic make his adharmic attempts. Let him stay hidden if he does great adharma. The greatest success of adharma is to be deemed dharmic when you are not.
Therefore, the perfectly adharmic man does the most perfect adharma while being reputable for dharma. If any of his bad deeds come to light, let him force his way through his courage, strength, bribery, and connections.
Let the dharmic man be the best of men all his life. Let the adharmic man be thought the worst.
When both have reached their uttermost extremes who is happier?
