There is a tale, "The Ring of Gyges," that Feldman sometimes tells his economist friends. It comes from Plato's Republic. A student named Glaucon offered the story in response to a lesson by Socrates-who, like Adam Smith, argued that people are generally good even without enforcement. Glaucon, like Feldman's economist friends, disagreed. He told of a shepherd named Gyges who stumbled upon a secret cavern with a corpse inside
that wore a ring. When Gyges put on the ring, he found that it made him invisible. With no one able to monitor his behavior, Gyges proceeded to do woeful things-seduce the queen, murder the king, and so on. Glaucon's story posed a moral question: could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? Glaucon seemed to think the answer was no. But Paul Feldman sides with Socrates and Adam Smith
--for he knows the answer, at least 87 percent of the time, is yes.

Feldman reaches the conclusion that most people are honest without receiving an incentive by

A- making a claim about his individual experiences and looking for evidence.

B- making a broad generalization about morality and looking for evidence.

C- studying his individual experiences and arriving at a broad generalization.

D-studying a counterclaim about morality and arriving at a broad generalization.

In this scenario, the person is making a broad generalization about morality by stating that "morality is subjective." This is a general claim about the nature of morality that suggests that what is considered right or wrong can vary from person to person. To support this claim, the person is looking for evidence that shows different people may have different moral beliefs or values. By seeking examples or instances where individuals hold contrasting moral views, they are attempting to demonstrate the subjectivity of morality.