If there was no consequence, would a responsible, intelligent human being act unjustly?

That’s the message in Plato’s allegory Ring of Gyges. If you're not familiar with the Ring of Gyges (I wasn't until I heard Brené Brown draw this correlation), I’ve included a recounting of the myth below:

An unnamed ancestor of Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the ruler of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed in a mountainside where he was feeding his flock.

Entering the cave, he discovered that it was in fact a tomb with a bronze horse containing a corpse, larger than that of a man, who wore a golden ring, which he pocketed. He discovered that the ring gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it.

He then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, he used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself. (Plato)

In The Republic, one of Plato’s most notable works, Glaucon (Plato’s brother) challenges Socrates with: 

Can a man be so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of killing, robbing, raping or generally doing injustice to whomever he pleased if he could do so without having to fear detection? Glaucon wants Socrates to argue that it's beneficial for us to be just, apart from all considerations of our reputation.

Socrates ultimately argues:

The man who abused the power of the Ring of Gyges has in fact enslaved himself to his appetites, while the man who chose not to use it remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy (Republic 10:612b).

In what way does the Ring of Gyges show up in today’s society?

The internet. Predominantly, social media.

Social media doesn’t (always) offer a “ring of anonymity,” but it does offer an implied wall of protection from consequence. (Even when consequences exist, they are minimal). It’s much less intimidating to confront, attack, warn, and simply stand up for your beliefs from the safety behind your screen. 

And why wouldn’t it be? In addition, the vulnerability of a live debate is mitigated by limitless resources in the palm of your hand. Which, frankly, adds another layer of gold to the ring. 

I think the Ring of Gyges is present in a way the philosophers couldn’t have predicted. We’re living the myth. And we’re seeing many of our fellow humans fall prey to the power of the ring. 

So, with the power of today’s Ring of Anonymity, what would the philosophers say?

In my opinion, Socrates’ answer would be the same. I’ve copied it below to save you the scroll:

The man who abused the power of the Ring of Gyges has in fact enslaved himself to his appetites, while the man who chose not to use it remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy.

There is always a consequence to unjust behavior (invisible or not). And that consequence is in one’s own heart and mind. An inescapable, unforgiving tumultuous consequence.

I think that’s the ultimate lesson from the Ring of Gyges.