Is pride the root of all evil?

We've all heard the cliche that money lies at the root of all evil, but I submit that this honor actually goes to pride, specifically the belief in our personal superiority over others. We treat other people badly either because we regard them as somehow less than worthy human beings or because we prioritize our own needs over theirs. Either way, there exists a sentiment that we matter more than our victims. On the other hand, all behavior we call good requires that we regard other people as our social equals or at least sharing certain rights with us. Even so-called benevolent despots recognize on some level that their subjects have as much right to life and happiness as themselves.

However, I believe that the freest and most morally righteous society is an egalitarian and democratic one where no one exerts arbitrary power over others and everyone treats each other as equals worthy of the same respect and dignity. On the other hand, authoritarian belief systems based on oppression and unfairly prioritizing some people's wants and needs over others' are inherently evil.

An egalitarian world of mutual respect would be a much better world, but unfortunately constructing it would challenge our prevailing cultural mindsets. In fact even I tend to regard people who endorse evil authoritarian beliefs as evil themselves even if in reality well-meaning individuals can be misled into supporting evil policies. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to world peace and happiness is the existence of authoritarian mindsets and people who commit to them.

Do you agree that sentiments of superiority are the root of all evil?

No. I'd say greed and fear make up the majority of motives for wrongdoing.

Holding your own needs over the needs of others isn't pride, unless you believe that it's for a reason like "I deserve it more". It's usually just "I care about myself more", which is something that all animals feel.

edited 23rd Aug '12 9:09:02 AM by RTaco

I'm going to agree with Socrates (well, with what Plato says that Socrates said...) and say that lack of understanding is the main source of human evil. Nobody, or nearly nobody, is so wicked that they would be willing to commit an evil act if they truly understood its nature and its consequences: when people do evil, it's generally because they are mistaken about the nature of good.

edited 23rd Aug '12 9:10:10 AM by Carciofus

No, I think greed is at the root of anything. At least greed is the only bad cause for things.

I don't believe that is connected with pride. Sometimes, when it comes down to it you need to just think about your own needs. At the end of the day your own needs(note, I didn't say wants) are more important than someone elses. To you. And there's nothing wrong with that.

At the end of the day, there will always be conflicts, and conflicts of interest and opinions will always lead to people feeling that they are right, and that others are wrong. When these feelings get intense enough, people empathize less and less.

edited 23rd Aug '12 9:24:32 AM by Barkey

The stereotypical political terrorist who murders innocents to strike back at a nation that he perceives as oppressing "his people" is not being particularly greedy or prideful, as far as I can tell...

I never said it wasn't greed, and there is a level of pride that gets involved, but I would say the root cause of that is misunderstanding if it is legitimate, and a sense of being misused if it is not.

Well, not necessarily. He might be perfectly justified in wanting to fight against his oppressors (or he might not — I'm not going to mention any specific example here, as it would lead us badly astray). His mistake, as far as I can tell, lies in believing that since his enemies hurt and terrorized civilians who belong to his people, he has a right to do the same to the innocents who happen to belong to their "side".

Fundamentally, as I can tell it, the terrorist's main mistake is in believing that groups matter more than individuals — that an innocent who belongs to a group that hurt his group is not actually an innocent at all and deserves to be hurt or oppressed in retaliation.

(There is a second mistake, I think, which is about the very concept of "retaliation"; but it is secondary here, I think — even if the terrorist's action was not framed as a form of "revenge", but simply as a fighting strategy, it would still be unacceptable.)

Yeah, I'd rather say that greed or envy are more basic and animalistic causes.

Perhaps they could be put together as "lack of self control".

Wanting nice stuff is not bad; taking it from others or disliking others for having it is.

Yeah, all things considered, I think that "lack of understanding" and "lack of self-control" are the two main sources of all evil behaviour.

edited 23rd Aug '12 10:17:48 AM by Carciofus

I'd say Greed does the most damage/is the root of the most harm done.

Probably Greed, Envy, Lust, Wrath, Pride, in that order.

The actual statement is "LOVE of money is the root of all evil". IE; Greed. People need money to live, so earning it in and of itself is not a bad thing, nor is having a lot of it. Just trying to get as much of it, or anything else, to the detriment of others and to other aspects of your life is what's evil.

As for pride; pride is not so much "I matter more than anyone else" as it is "I'm better than anyone else", because it allows you to assume you're superior no matter what position you're in. More noble, more humble, more hardworking, whatever. You can be a very generous person and still have pride as an extreme flaw. It can also lead you to do very stupid things. Thing is, you can be prideful and still be well intentioned; it's a lot harder to be greedy and well intentioned.

Greed doesn't necessarily have to be evil, nor does it have to be in any way money related. A person could have greed for anything. To some, greed might just mean wanting something a whole lot. You could just as easily be greedy for as many friends as you can possibly have as you can be greedy for material possessions.

My point is, you can't base this whole thing on objective dictionary definitions and semantics. Human morality and emotion doesn't work that way. It has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. For someone else, pride might just be self-respect, and lust might just be run-of-the-mill human horniness.

Victimizing others for personal gain is essentially evil.

Again, you're suggesting that there's one universally accepted meaning for words like greed, lust, pride, etc. Under certain definitions, these don't have to necessarily hurt anyone.

I somewhat agree with the Greed argument but I'd prefer to call it Selfishness, because it's a lot broader than the mere material hoarding most people associate with Greed.

And a lot of pride would really fall under selfishness as well, since pride is at its core an unhealthy focus on one's own status, ignoring others.

edited 23rd Aug '12 11:38:02 AM by EdwardsGrizzly

Lennik, there are generally universal meanings for words like greed. They're in the dictionary as such. They don't mean anything else unless you're using your own personal dictionary.

A better way to word your argument is whether or not people consider these to be bad things or not, and also to what degree, but the general definitions are pretty solid in our language and cultural consciousness.

Grizzly makes a fairly good point here.

edited 23rd Aug '12 11:41:41 AM by AceofSpades

I'm going with something akin to pride: Egoism coupled with a lack of empathy for the suffering of others is the root of all evil. That's what allows ambitious people to take things from more vulnerable people and rationalize it as acceptable. "Greed" is one form that this impulse can take, but not the only one (jealousy is another). Money is simply the thing that people want most often, and therefore what they take from others. Romantic partners would be second.

I don't think pride is the root of all evil, to be technically serious. It also depends on how far of a context do you define evil. Our instincts to survive can make us have different opinions about things. Are our instincts inherently evil then? The amount of humans had long exceeded the safety threshold of Earth's ecosystem. Are social inconveniences caused by overpopulation inherently evil then?

I think it's less about pride and more about some people with the needed to 'prove a point' . We have seen some maniacs along the Islamic way like Osama, who is like a charlatan upon his own religion. Did he, then, have a pride? No. Just layers of vendetta. What about the extreme rightist who shot kids at Utoya Island? That may have been pride-induced but again, it's fueled by nothing but a pipe nightmare that doesn't even have any justification. What about that orange haired hobo who shot people at Dark Knight Rises premiere screening? It was fueled by a blind rage that the movies deviated from the comics

So, it's less about pride, and more about the instincts born out of twisted and bent worldviews. When there are so many humans, it's hard to SEE the equal value among all lives.

I'd say it's probably greed. Maybe a touch of trying to propagate ideologies.

This thread scares me. In discussing what 'the root of all evil' is, you're all assuming that there is such a thing as 'evil' in the first place, and that it has a 'root' which can be identified (and, presumably, destroyed).

The idea that 'evil' is something more... solid than a vague umbrella term for 'things I really don't like' is the stuff of bad fantasy novels - and of deeply dogmatic, often violent and totalitarian world-views.

The point is, I think, best brought across by the late Rudy Kousbroek *

Translation from Dutch to English mine.

I completely disagree with everything in that quoted passage.

Evil may or may not be a thing that is solidly real. I suppose that evil could be defined as "Adhamma" things that are opposed to the Dhamma. However that would make most beings evil. So really that definition doesn't work unless we feel like declaring everyone who drinks booze and has a sense of self they cling to as evil. That and evil just carries with it this judgmental edge. And so I just won't use it under most circumstances.

I personally believe ignorance to be the absolute root of existence and pain. As well as Adhamma. Without ignorance there is no life or death. Nor is there any pain or pleasure. Or Adhamma. There is only Dhamma and fullness in nothing. The first and most important part of ignorance being the statement of "I am me". Through this clinging there is fear of death and desire for pleasure and continued existence. Which generates kamma.

However this leads to the problem of what I believe first created kamma and absolutely everything to which I must state that I do not know. We could say the big bang but I hold that the big bang was simply the rebirth of the universe due to kamma. The beginning of the circle is what would be the absolute root of everything and, by extension, evil. Assuming that Nibbana itself isn't evil by an exact and weighted definition.

Though what that definition is I don't think we know. And I'm not entirely certain that we can. My faith in being able to find ultimate truth is one that isn't certain and can't be until I find it.

And even then is it?

Now that's just plain lazy - simply saying 'I disagree' without even trying to explain why you disagree with it and what your own view on the matter is.

Personally, I think Kousbroek exaggerated a bit as to how widespread this attitude is, but that he was spot on in explaining how dangerous it is and why.

You... I'm not even going to try and argue with you. I've tried that once before and it didn't work out. No offence, but we see the world in such completely different ways that I don't think a debate between us can lead to anything.