After an earthquake in the countryside, Gyges, a shepherd of Lydia, discovers a chasm beneath the earth which houses the tomb of a corpse wearing nothing but a gold ring. Gyges takes the ring and, while wearing it at the local meeting of shepherds, turns the setting of the ring towards the inside of his hand. When he does so, he becomes invisible. When the setting is turned back, he becomes visible again. Glaucon asks us now to imagine two such rings: one is given to a just person, the other is given to an unjust person. Now although entirely fictional, Glaucon's point is a good one. And that is, since neither could be caught in acts such as stealing, voyeurism, rape, etc., because of their cloak of invisibility, neither would be just. It is only the veneer of what we have invented through culture which forces us to act in civilized ways. Once we can 'get away' with something without the fear of being caught, we will most certainly do it.
A friend and I were discussing the behaviour of a man she knew. He did something that shocked her, and I proposed that the reasons for his doing so where not complex: he did it because he thought he could get away with it (of course, he was wrong). It goes along with something I read in The Economist years ago about British crime: crime goes down not necessarily when the punishments for the crimes increase, but when the likelihood of being caught increases.
The quote is from an article/interview about/with Tool's Maynard James Keenan. Hat tip goes to Tool-aficionado Pinder.