Both philosophers and theologians often attribute many of the evils committed by humans to things like greed (greed for money, power, land) or hatred (hatred of different races, religions, ethnic groups). This is not unreasonable because we can see the obvious influence of greed and hatred in so many human conflicts, both large-scale (like wars) and small-scale (like local crime).
- There is no more destructive force in human affairs — not greed, not hatred — than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is trivial when compared with non-attachment to opinions.
- Mark Kleiman
Mark Kleiman takes a step back and singles out what he thinks may be an even more significant source of suffering and violence: the desire to have been right. This particular motivation isn’t nearly so easy to identify as are motivations like greed and hatred, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. I think that most people will intuitively recognize the existence of such a motive in others — but will they recognize it in themselves?
Just to be clear, I think that what Kleiman is talking about is a personal motivation that prevents a person from modifying or even abandoning a position in the light of evidence or arguments which should, in an ideal world, compel them to do just that. Thus, for example, my “desire to have been right” about a war will cause me to keep defending the initial decision to launch that war even after I am presented with information that the decision was an error. I will rationalize, I will abandon my usual epistemic standards, and I may even come up with new reasons that were never used originally.
Why? Because my ego can’t face the consequences of having been wrong. This is a curious facet of human character because if asked directly, no one will pretend that they are infallible and everyone will acknowledge that they are not only capable of making mistakes but that they do, indeed, make mistakes regularly. That’s simply the nature of being human. So why is there an insistence on infallibility on a case-by-case basis? This is probably limited to those issues where being wrong would undermine ideas which hold a great deal of psychological or emotional value, would suggest profound ethical or epistemic lapses, or would have especially serious consequences for one’s self-esteem and social standing.
I can certainly agree that the “desire to have been right” plays a role in all manner of conflicts. I’m not sure, however, that it is significantly more important than other problems and motivations. The reason why I say this is because a desire to have been right is necessarily a secondary characteristic of any position a person adopts. It cannot come first because in order for one to desire to have been right, they must have initiated some position that they want to be right about.
Thus, a person will must first adopt a position of greed (God says I should have this land) or hatred (God says you are inferior to me) and then, later on, the desire to have been right about that original position will prevent them from changing their position and ending their greed or hatred. If a person hadn’t been motivated by greed and hatred in the first place, the motivation to have been right wouldn’t have mattered.
I can think of two responses to this. The first is that not all original motivations are deplorable in the way that greed and hatred can be. Thus, a person’s original motivation might have been honorable (they thought they were doing good) and, upon learning that they were actually causing harm, the desire to have been right is what gets people into serious trouble.
A second response is that whatever problems might be caused by “bad” original motivations like greed and hatred, a desire to have been right plays a significant role in that it exacerbates and worsens whatever problems might already exist. A person motivated by greed might cause conflict and suffering, but if they admit that they were wrong then at least things can get better and some justice achieved. A desire to have been right prevents this.
I’m still not sure that “non-attachment to possessions“ is trivial when compared with “non-attachment to opinions.” I am, however, confident that Kleiman has identified something very important that needs to be taken into account in attempts to analyze ethical problems in human conflicts. Traditional philosophical and theological analyses spend a lot of time on matters like greed and hatred, but they should also spend time on the desire to have been right.
Note: Mark Kleiman’s original quote is actually “There is no more destructive force in human affairs — not greed, not hatred — than the desire to have been right. Non-attachment to possessions is of trivial value in comparison with non-attachment to opinions” He encourages mis-quotes if anyone thinks they can make minor improvements on his formulation. The above is my suggestion.
