{"id":163,"date":"2017-07-31T08:31:29","date_gmt":"2017-07-31T08:31:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=163"},"modified":"2017-09-18T14:02:04","modified_gmt":"2017-09-18T14:02:04","slug":"hubris-as-prime-ministerial-vice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/hubris-as-prime-ministerial-vice\/","title":{"rendered":"Hubris as Prime Ministerial Vice"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Theresa May\u2019s snap election backfired decimating her majority, many commentators were quick to use a language of vices to describe her errors. \u2018May\u2019s astounding arrogance has now paved the way for another General Election\u2019, complained the Independent<\/i>, echoing attacks by the Guardian<\/i> and Mirror<\/i> of the various forms of arrogance in the Prime Minister\u2019s conduct. Other vices were invoked, too. \u2018An epic tale of hubris\u2019, declared the New Statesman<\/i>, echoing the Financial Times\u2019<\/i> declaration that \u2018May\u2019s hubris robs Britain of stability\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

An appeal to vices \u2013 negative character traits \u2013 was just one dimension of the critical debate concerning May\u2019s conduct and its outcome. But the practice of criticizing an individual or group by charging them with vices is a very common feature of our social and public discourse.\u00a0 It\u2019s a practice that I\u2019ve elsewhere called \u2018vice-charging\u2019, and it\u2019s important to understand what is going on when we talk about greedy bankers, dogmatic politicians, and closed-minded pundits. Is talk of May\u2019s arrogance, dogmatism, and hubris just rhetoric \u2013 a way of venting frustration or letting off steam \u2013 or is it doing genuine critical work?<\/span><\/p>\n

A robust vice-charge has to have several features, without which it risks being mere rhetoric. For a start, the vice or vices in question have to be defined. It\u2019s not good enough to throw around terms like \u2018arrogant\u2019, since it\u2019s not always clear what that is \u2013 what, for instance, is the difference between confidence and arrogance? A robust vice charge describes the vice\u2019s components and structure. Next, the critic must provide evidence that the target \u2013 the putatively vicious person \u2013 actually has that vice. These two points pull together: if I have a robust account of a certain vice, then I can determine whether a person evinces the sorts of attitudes and behaviors characteristic of that vice. A further requirement is that a vice charge must be sensitive to the conditions under which the vicious agent is acting. Is a person\u2019s arrogance in this case due to their character alone, or is it being shaped by the conditions they\u2019re working in? This latter point matters, since so much of our social and epistemic behavior is shaped by contextual factors \u2013 like power relations, pressures, structural considerations, and so on.<\/span><\/p>\n

With these points in mind, consider just one of the vices imputed to May \u2013 hubris<\/i>. It\u2019s not a vice that usually springs to mind in the way that \u2018arrogance\u2019 does, and is less familiar for that reason. Very roughly, a person is guilty of hubris<\/i> if they assume or assert their possession of exaggerated abilities or powers \u2013 ones that no-one could possess. It\u2019s a sort of advanced arrogance, and leads a person to act in ways that could only be sensible if they did possess such magisterial powers. A famous classical example of hubris is Icarus. Granting to himself the power of flight, he soared higher into the sky, against his father\u2019s advice, acting as if that power was natural \u2013 one he could exercise with impunity, despite its dangers, and the result was, of course, his tragic fall to his death. Hubris ends in tragedy. The myth illustrates the dangers of hubris: if a person acts in ways that could only be sensible and legitimate if they possessed rights or powers they lack, then, sooner or later, their hubris will be exposed to their terrible loss.<\/span><\/p>\n

With this sketch of hubris in mind, are commentators right to charge May with hubris? Giving a comprehensive answer to that question is more than I can do here, so let\u2019s consider just one dimension of hubris \u2013 a tendency to act in ways that betray an unwarranted confidence in one\u2019s prospects for success, of the sort we saw in Icarus. Political commentators offer many examples of such hubristic over-confidence on May\u2019s part during the election campaign. The Conservative Party manifesto was derided, by George Osbourne, as the \u201cworst in history\u201d, appallingly heavy on rhetoric and light on detail. The much-derided mantra \u2013 \u2018strong and stable\u2019 \u2013 was undermined by her many U-turns and the conspicuous reliance on highly stage-managed appearances before audiences of Tory loyalists. The introduction of the \u2018dementia tax\u2019 social care policy without doing the careful work to prepare the ground through focus groups and internal party committees.<\/span><\/p>\n

All of this and more was chewed over by commentators, especially the Tories both angry and alarmed at the eradication of their comfortable majority. But all of these behaviors are consistent with hubris. Supreme self-confidence can show itself in a failure to do the work to secure one\u2019s position and power (like campaigning on the back of a strong manifesto or canvassing and engaging with critics as well as cheering supporters). Hubris also manifests as a failure to engage with other people \u2013 colleagues, critics, voters \u2013 on the assumption that one\u2019s own decisions are steadfast and secure. In May\u2019s case, there is also tragedy, in the loss of her majority and the damage to her personal authority and the surge in support for the Labour Party. All of this is consistent with hubristic character.<\/span><\/p>\n

The prominence of a language of hubris in the commentaries on May\u2019s conduct surely reflects a sense that there is a such a vice and it manifests in the sorts of behavior she showed during the campaign. But it is one thing to employ a language of hubris \u2013 quite another to work this up into what I called a robust vice-charge. A critic who wants to robustly charge May with hubris will need to give a fuller definition of that vice\u2019s psychology and behaviors, and then show she is systematically guilty of them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the critic will also then have to determine to what extent her hubris is a feature of her character (a vice in the familiar sense) or a feature exacerbated or encouraged by contextual factors. A sense of hubristic overconfidence may be a general feature of a person\u2019s character, but it can be encouraged by contextual factors (like a strong majority in parliament or a history of electoral success or a lack of critical voices urging caution). A really interesting question would then be: to what extent is May\u2019s hubris an artifact of her context \u2013 of the advisors she appointments, the internal party culture she has created, and so on. A person can be naturally hubristic, for sure, but they can also be made more hubristic by the conditions they live and work and think in.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thinking about vicious agents therefore requires us to think carefully about corrupting conditions. Given the familiar criticisms of British political culture \u2013 aggressive, brawling, adversarial \u2013 reflection on corrupting conditions that encourage vices like hubris in politicians would be very welcome.<\/span><\/p>\n

To find out more see Ian James Kidd, ‘Charging Others with Epistemic Vice’, The Monist<\/em>, 2016, 99 (2), pp. 181-97<\/a>
\n
\nImage is an illustration of Milton’s Paradise Lost by Gustave Dor\u00e9 which is a public domain work of art<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"When Theresa May\u2019s snap election backfired decimating her majority, many commentators were quick to use a language of vices to describe her errors. \u2018May\u2019s astounding arrogance has now paved the […]","protected":false},"author":1334,"featured_media":169,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[4,23,57,22,7,9,15,58],"custom_author":[81],"class_list":["post-163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-arrogance","tag-changing-attitudes-in-public-discourse","tag-hubris","tag-humility-and-conviction-in-public-life","tag-politics","tag-public","tag-theresa-may","tag-vices","custom_author-kidd-ian-james"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-2D","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":207,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-vices-of-truthlessness\/","url_meta":{"origin":163,"position":0},"title":"The Vices of Truthlessness","author":"Charlie Crerar","date":"August 28, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"From \u2018post-truth\u2019, to \u2018fake news\u2019, to \u2018alternative facts\u2019, truthlessness is everywhere at the moment. These phenomena present us with a huge array of questions. How do we separate fact from fiction? How can we tell which sources of information are credible? Is there even such a thing as objective truth?\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/in-the-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-closed-mindedness-obstructs-effective-inquiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":163,"position":1},"title":"How Closed-Mindedness Obstructs Effective Inquiry","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"In his recent book Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, John Nixon describes his encounters with the two main protagonists of the 2003 Iraq war. Nixon, a senior leadership analyst for the CIA, was the first American to interrogate Saddam Hussein at length after his capture by U.S.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/arguing-virtuously\/","url_meta":{"origin":163,"position":2},"title":"Arguing Virtuously","author":"Andrew Aberdein","date":"August 14, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"I recently found out that I had been collecting books by accident. Rearranging some shelves, I discovered I had several books with similar titles, all acquired at different times, and for different reasons, but with a strikingly similar theme: Winning Arguments; How to Win An Argument; How to Win Every\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/330px-1909_Tyee_-_Debate_and_Oratory_illustration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":843,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/moralism-wins-morality-loses-moralism-as-a-vice-in-the-public-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":163,"position":3},"title":"Moralism wins, morality loses. Moralism as a vice in the public debate","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 27, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Federico Zuolo \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Back in the 20th century, it was not uncommon to hear a leftist accusing a conservative of being \u201cmoralist\u201d. Indeed, conservatives were attacked for their pruderies, bigotry and unjustified moralist worries about sexual liberation, drugs, female role, and so on; while a common tenet\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/01\/Theriot_finger_mobile_7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2233,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/being-pluralistic-about-philosophical-pessimism-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":163,"position":4},"title":"Being pluralistic about philosophical pessimism (Part 2)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 31, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In part one, I argued that the conceptual core of pessimism is the twin judgments that the human condition is very bad and likely to remain so. However, this does not deliver a full philosophical doctrine of pessimism. Content and context. A philosophical pessimist takes these judgements and tries to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2119,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-should-we-live-our-intellectual-lives\/","url_meta":{"origin":163,"position":5},"title":"How should we lead our intellectual lives?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This question has long preoccupied philosophers, but has recently taken on greater public urgency in response to fears about misinformation, disinformation, bullshit, tribalism, and other perceived epistemic threats. One answer to this question is that we should live our intellectual lives the same way we should live our ethical lives:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1334"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":176,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163\/revisions\/176"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/169"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}