10 How are we to live? he ultimate choice ll of ethics and human nature. The implication of the story is of ones nature, and being happy. It all seems too theoretical that anyone who had such a ring would abandon all ethical too contrived, and the dialogue becomes one-sided. There are standards. and what is more, would be quite rational to obvious objections that we would like to see put to Socrates, but after the initial presentation of the challenge, Glaucon's critical faculties seem to have deserted him, and he meekly one, it is thought, would be of such adamantine nature accepts every argument Socrates puts to him. to abide in justice and have the strength to abstain from van Boesky had, in the information he received from Dennis levine a kind of magic ring; something that could would be in his power to steal anything he wished from the make him as close to a king as one can get in the republican very marketplace with impunity, to enter men,'s houses and wealth-oriented United States. As it turned out, the ring had have intercourse with whom he would to kill or to set free whomsoever he pleased; in short, to walk among men as a god a flaw: Boesky was not invisible when he wanted to be. Bu was that Boesky's only mistake, the only reason why he should if any man who possessed this power we have described not have obtained and used Levines information? The chal should nevertheless refuse to do anything unjust or to rob his lenge that Boesky,s opportunity poses to us is a modern-day fellows. all who knew of his conduct would think him the most version of the challenge that Glaucon put to Socrates. Can we miserable and foolish of men, though they would praise him give a better answer? other,s faces, their fear of suffering injustice extorting that ne'answer' that is really no answer at all is to ignore the deceit from them challenge. Many people do. They live and die unreflectively without ever having asked themselves what their goals are Glaucon then challenges socrates to show that this com- and why they are doing what they do. If you are totally mon opinion of ethics is mistaken. Convince us, he and the satisfied with the life you are now living, and quite sure that other participants in the discussion say to Socrates, that there are sound reasons for doing what is right- not just reasons like the fear of getting caught, but reasons that would apply to yourselves the questions that Socrates faced, however, you en if we knew we would not be found out. show us that have not chosen how you liv wise person who found the ring would, unlike the shepherd, inue to do what is right That, at any rate, is how Plato described the scene. Accord- What in the hell are we doing this for? ing to Plato, Socrates convinced Glaucon and the other Today the question of how we are to live confronts us more Athenians present that, whatever profit injustice may seem to sharply than ever. We have emerged from the eighties bring, only those who act rightly are really happy. Unfortu decade that has become known as the decade of greed nately, few modern readers are persuaded by the long and ? but not yet determined the nature of the nineties. Boesky complicated account that Socrates gives of the links between himself helped to define the eighties by giving a commence- acting rightly, having a proper harmony between the elements ment address at the school of Business administration at th10 How ar e we to live ? The ultimat e choic e II of ethics and human nature. The implication of the story is that anyone who had such a ring would abandon all ethical standards - and what is more, would be quite rational to do so: . . . no one, it is thought, would be of such adamantine nature as to abide in justice and have the strength to abstain from theft, and to keep his hands from the goods of others, when it would be in his power to steal anything he wished from the very marketplace with impunity, to enter men's houses and have intercourse with whom he would, to kill or to set free whomsoever he pleased; in short, to walk among men as a god . . . if any man who possessed this power we have described should nevertheless refuse to do anything unjust or to rob his fellows, all who knew of his conduct would think him the most miserable and foolish of men, though they would praise him to each other's faces, their fear of suffering injustice extorting that deceit from them.5 Glaucon then challenges Socrates to show that this com￾mon opinion of ethics is mistaken. Convince us, he and the other participants in the discussion say to Socrates, that there are sound reasons for doing what is right - not just reasons like the fear of getting caught, but reasons that would apply even if we knew we would not be found out. Show us that a wise person who found the ring would, unlike the shepherd, continue to do what is right. That, at any rate, is how Plato described the scene. Accord￾ing to Plato, Socrates convinced Glaucon and the other Athenians present that, whatever profit injustice may seem to bring, only those who act rightly are really happy. Unfortu￾nately, few modern readers are persuaded by the long and ?i complicated account that Socrates gives of the links between acting rightly, having a proper harmony between the elements of one's nature, and being happy. It all seems too theoretical, too contrived, and the dialogue becomes one-sided. There are obvious objections that we would like to see put to Socrates, but after the initial presentation of the challenge, Glaucon's critical faculties seem to have deserted him, and he meekly accepts every argument Socrates puts to him. Ivan Boesky had, in the information he received from Dennis Levine, a kind of magic ring; something that could make him as close to a king as one can get in the republican, wealth-oriented United States. As it turned out, the ring had a flaw: Boesky was not invisible when he wanted to be. But was that Boesky's only mistake, the only reason why he should not have obtained and used Levine's information? The chal￾lenge that Boesky's opportunity poses to us is a modern-day version of the challenge that Glaucon put to Socrates. Can we give a better answer? One 'answer' that is really no answer at all is to ignore the challenge. Many people do. They live and die unreflectively, without ever having asked themselves what their goals are, and why they are doing what they do. If you are totally satisfied with the life you are now living, and quite sure that it is the life you want to lead, there is no need to read further. What is to come may only unsettle you. Until you have put to yourselves the questions that Socrates faced, however, you have not chosen how you live. 'What in the hell are we doing this for?' Today the question of how we are to live confronts us more sharply than ever. We have emerged from the eighties - the decade that has become known as The Decade of Greed' - but not yet determined the nature of the nineties. Boesky himself helped to define the eighties by giving a commence￾ment address at the School of Business Administration at the