Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

This debate erupted on the IRC tonight when someone asked if a character from BCB was justifiably arrogant. What are your opinions?

Here's my case, please criticize / respond / elaborate as you see fit.

The Question: Is arrogance as we understand / are familiar with it ever justified?

Definition: Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. (source: http://dictionary.re...rowse/arrogance)

So arrogance is basically thinking that you are BETTER as a human being than someone else. Can we ever truly objectively measure human worth? If we can, then arrogance is justified. Here's my argument against:

1) Our definition of "better" as a human being will be constructed by us, and will always be relative to our society, our species, our values, what I had for breakfast, etc. The rating system will be completely and totally subjective, meaning that different people will see / believe different results.

2) To be objective means to be free from human opinion. I am NOT talking about "objective within a society", I mean the science kind of objective, the kind that lets 100 people look into a microscope and agree that they're looking at penicillin instead of E.coli.

3) If we grant 1, our definition of "better" as a human being is not objective because it is relative.

4) So we can't objectively (in the scientific sense) rate human beings.

That's why I think this can't be done in principle, so arrogance is never justified. There are always bigger fish in the pond, so to say.

I choose answer 6... because even if we could, we definitely shouldn't. The nazis tried this kind of thing, and unspeakable horrors followed from it. So even if we could measure human worth objectively, we shouldn't do it anyway.

Also, being arrogant is one of the qualities of being an (insert explicative here). It's not nice, we don't like it. Win gracefully, show respect for even those you've beaten.

What do you guys think?

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 22 December 2010 - 03:35 AM

Measuring human worth relative to other humans is, in my opinion, both impossible and unjust - unless you place all humans in the category of equal and endless worth. Now, arrogance is understandable, and in some cases justified; it is better to say, for instance, "I am a better musician than you are" as opposed to "Everybody in the world are equally able musicians". It is not a good thing, I would never say it is, but it is justified when we look at smaller aspects - such as prowess with musical instruments, writing, extent of knowledge, looks, sense of logic, drawing ability, and so on. On the whole, I think the question is a bit badly worded, because "arrogance" does not necessarily mean that you consider yourself to be better than the other on all or most counts, but better in the one category that is in focus at the moment.

Nonetheless, I voted for option six, because I feel strongly that all humans are of equal, and limitless, worth. I go against the notion that it can be measured for the reasons you provide, and also for religious reasons that I am sure several of you might comment upon (see: SuitCase).

For the poll, I voted 3. If we're talking about perspective and about what it means to be valuable, we are talking about the ability of someone or something to affect its surroundings. Human beings are specks. We are intergalactic stardust so far removed from everything else in the universe it can't even be fully grasped. Measuring from a human point of view is meaningless, because our role in the universe is nigh on meaningless. Our insignificance compared with the universe, the whole of its existence throughout time, the whole of all possible universal existences throughout infinite timelines, and the whole of all universal realities throughout infinite concepts of reality, precludes any possible attachment of "value" to human beings.

EDIT:
Whoops. Thought those were two different questions. Derp.

Actually they are different.
Arrogance is not necessarily placing one's value as a human being above another's. Arrogance can be deciding that one is a better tennis player or cook than another, in fields that can be defined objectively and measured objectively. In that case, justified arrogance is just confidence. Maybe annoying, but still confidence. The measure of a human being and his/her value can be taken in all sorts of directions and definitions, from how much power they hold over their surroundings and other people, to moral "superiority" to who knows what else. My previous answer was based on a more utilitarian concept of value.

This post has been edited by Seg: 14 December 2010 - 03:48 AM

I see, so the idea is that arrogance has to be made fuzzy - it's not just thinking that you're BETTER (with a capital B) than someone else... more to it.

Alright then. But isn't arrogance also being impervious, thinking that you're the best no matter what? I always kind of viewed arrogance as a negative trait - confidence is good, but arrogance is like cancerous confidence. I mean, if you're arrogant, why not be confident (even that you're better than someone else AT something) instead of flaunting? It's this kind of "in your face you suck I rule" attitude that I'm attacking.

Thanks for the responses guys, this is an interesting question.

Starwatcher, on 14 December 2010 - 03:56 AM, said:

This might be a discrepancy between our definitions of arrogance. My idea was that a display of arrogance is one of undeserved confidence in one's abilities or value, to the point where one makes assumptions based on that confidence. For example, to expect respect where none is due would be arrogance. A person who has an entirely justified idea of one's own abilities, and deserves the confidence he or she shows isn't being arrogant if said person acts like a jerk. That's just a confident jerk.

You know what... I agree with you there.

Confident jerk != arrogant person

And since we agree on what it means to be arrogant now, I think we'll also agree that it's kind of a separate issue from thinking you're a better person than someone else.

Nifty.

i am the greatest man alive.

A lot of these topics completely bore me because the answer is so obvious. Obviously, it's all subjective, unless you make an arbitrary definition, and that some people share certain views to a certain degree. zzzzz.

Yeah, morality, ethics, and words are all just abstract concepts. Perception is skewed by perspective, and it's pretty much impossible to have any sort of realistic measurement of an abstract construct in our minds. The way we think and perceive has a lot to do with the words we say and know.

Pretty much what Bacon said. Although, it's in human nature to be arrogant. Without that, humans probably wouldn't be half as motivated to succeed. Trying to take down an arrogant person is a powerful motivation, after all.

The answer may seem obvious but that also is subjective.
I mean, I think that we can't put worth in human life, because it is subjective, but others may not think that.
I don't think they are less intelligent because of that (some are saying this is obvious, meaning that who won't agree are stupid), and thinking differently lead people to disagreements.

Ergh, I don't know if I was clear,
what I said is like saying: "Every single generalization is wrong"
Kinda hard to explain.

For me, the important thing is respecting people with different minds as well, including, obviously those that are arrogant.

Okay, I see that some of you have equated arrogance with confidence. I do not believe that this is true. One can be extremely confident and not arrogant. One can think that they are better than someone else without being arrogant. In my eyes, a person becomes arrogant when they are not only so sure of their own abilities but also if they feel a sense of entitlement because of their confidence in their ability, real or imagined.

Taking that into consideration, it is not a good thing for people to be arrogant. In most cases, the sense of entitlement has the side effect of depreciating the value of everyone else. And in some cases, this sense of entitlement is false and misguided.

So for the reasons above - we all agree that arrogance is BAD then? Meaning that it is never justified?

I don't like the premise of this thread, because it implies the subject is objective. Arrogance is simply the opinion that you're better than someone; there's no means for justification to any of that.

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 14 December 2010 - 04:18 PM

I do think most people that I talk to are arrogant.
Arrogance until a level is comprehensible, higher than that can be tolerable, and higher than that makes it a pain in the ass talking to that person.

The more arrogant a person is, the harder is liking him/her. So, for me, it is a bad thing, I guess.

If I'm arrogant?
of course not, I'm better than that!
I don't know, but I can say I try my best not to hurt anyone's feelings.

It's just an argument over semantics. Just like every other fucking debate in the universe. But yes, my extremely biased brain tells me that arrogance is annoying and a bad character flaw.

I thought it was pretty interesting at 1 in the morning.

All of you suck and I'm the best.

(Yes.)

Even me?

The. BEST.

Reminds me of myself

Whelp, argument is gone.

Everyone ass-kiss to Credence in hope that she'll be merciful.

Credence, on 15 December 2010 - 12:32 AM, said:

Quote

Also true. But confidence is just how you feel about it; arrogance is the way you act. It may be justified to feel confident, and a by-effect of confidence is too often arrogance (take any professional musician, for instance). The arrogance is not justified as such, but it may be more than understandable if you put one of the aforementioned musicians in the same room as a teenager who just started playing the piano.

There we go! Finally I think we're getting somewhere.

Hm? Oh, perhaps. I am just defining my view more closely than what I did in my original post.

The question is still a bit muddled, but I would say that comparison is immoral and, in most ways, impossible - arrogance, however, while not at all advisable and certainly an annoying characteristic, is understandable and an entirely human reaction.

If you weren't so inferior you'd know why it is justified. ;3

[Devil's Advocate]

Does a man who worked himself from rags to become a multimillionaire who dedicates much of his income each year to charities around the world have a right to feel better than the crack dealer on the street next to his business? Of course. We are not asking if it is necessarily a good thing to be arrogant, only if it is justified, which merely requires a reasonable and defensible cause. Does Bill Gates have a right to see himself as better than the robber barons of the previous era? Certainly. Is the student from Oxford who spends her summers in Africa teaching children English reasonably justified in feeling better than her classmates who stayed home and partied? In short, yes.

Arrogance is often associated with those who have an unreasonably high opinion of themselves, but this is a characature of popular culture. In my book, arrogance is looking down at someone, and if you have reached a sufficient height it becomes almost impossible not to look down on those who surround you. Their condescension may be infuriating, but it is justified.
[/Devil's Advocate]

*A-hem*
[sidetrack]

Ninja said:

Actually there's a lot of deeper issues and reasons why local governments and educated locals HATE those damn missionaries! I'm not gonna go into the detail here cause it's off topic, but in short: things aren't always as they appear, foreign missionaries and aid workers "teaching" the "natives" might not know it, but are working for BUTTFUCKER COMPANIES / INSTITUTIONS WITH HIDDEN AGENDAS WHICH SCREW with local authorities and related populances.

[/sidetrack]
Do go on.

This post has been edited by Migrant: 19 December 2010 - 11:59 AM

It becomes interesting how people think. If you're better, wouldn't it be rather easy to tell? Norms, "better", "worse", most other social details... they're relative. Basic sociology makes that obvious.

Wow this is still here?

After reading the responses I have to concede that I started with a bad definition of arrogance. From what I understand, the mass opinion is that it doesn't USUALLY have anything to do with thinking you're a better (with a capital B) person than someone else.

Anyway. If we ignore the arrogance part of the question, I think we'll all agree that you can't objectively measure the worth of a human. My position is that we shouldn't even if we could, but that seems to be against the majority.

You make an interesting and true point, *Ninja, but I believe the central issue (as defined in the main post) also pertains to the value of a human life. And no, I would not say that the multimillionaire of which you speak is any more worth than the drug dealers. Not at all.

Also, I disagree partly with your one-sided view of the subjects you mentioned - yes, the student from Oxford who dedicated her summers to teaching English should feel better about that than those who stayed at home should feel about their partying. But good deeds are not as easily measurable; what if one of those who remained did so because they wanted to be with a friend who could not go, and thus averted a suicide (or possibly several)? What if the project to teach English fails, and turns people in that country against each other, igniting a feud which may last for hundreds of years? What if those who stayed got the chance to volunteer in shelters for the homeless, or became role models for some friends of theirs who could have destroyed their life by things like smoking or drugs? The same also applies to Bill Gates and the robber barons - even though mister Gates' efforts has raised billions for charities, and his company provides work for many, I would like to defend the statement that one sometimes has to be cruel to be kind. If a greater good can be obtained through a few deaths (such as better distribution of wealth and food among the remaining), then a murderer is not - in effect - any worse than one who tried and failed to resolve the conflict peacefully.

I am not defending any violent actions that are committed in past, present or future, but it is true that no deed is isolated. Even good ones have destructive effects, and vice versa. ^_^

Quote

No we can't, but a subjective measure can be just as valid either way.

Quote

That is a different issue completelly. While I'm still undecided, I usually tend to agree with you on that.

ILB said:

Screw you ILB! Aid workers are SCUM! Scum of the earth! The bastards!

This post has been edited by Migrant: 20 December 2010 - 05:32 AM

Migrant, on 20 December 2010 - 05:30 AM, said:

What do you mean by "valid"?

Maybe people should be comfortable with themselves, find what they enjoy and work to pursue it, as long it doesn't violate the rights of others. Who cares what others think of you or what you think of them. It's what you think of yourself and how you interact with the world around you.

Ace, on 20 December 2010 - 05:44 AM, said:

Agreed! I like that idea.

useful. Valid = useful, practical.

Sure, if you find it "useful" to give me a rating as a human being of 30/100 as opposed to 60/100, that's fine for your purposes. That doesn't entitle you to call someone you give a 70/100 to superior to me though.

It's this absolute, final, numerical score I'm trying to attack here.

I don't think that useful and objective have to line up necessarily.

Perhaps a numerical score is a bit too harsh of an example (though certainly possible, it could be rather difficult to achieve). a more useful thing would be to just make straight comparisons. Person A is better (at this or that) than person B who is better than person C, etc. You can take individual skills or features to analyse or group several features. Though generally the more features you group into one comparison, the more the standard deviation increases and the less useful the comparison becomes.

One example where several characteristics of a person are added together and attempt to be compared to find "the better one" is in government elections. People chose to vote for one candidate or another based on a myriad of different reasons. In the end one candidate wil come out on top. Using the consensus definitions of "better" or "worse", one person is chosen for the job. In this case you could even argue they are given a number, as candidate X can have 67% of votes and candidate Y 31%, etc.

This post has been edited by Migrant: 20 December 2010 - 07:32 AM

Yes, but the values of the voters are what the scores are based off of. If you run the same experiment in another country, or even in another time the results will change.

Of course, there's a relative definition of good or better at certain tasks that's fine (which is what we're really talking about with these examples).

Quote

Yes, completely horrible. ^_^

I think, it's only possible to call someone arrogant from an outside point of view

Would you call the man working in an office block, who finds the notion of a drug addict on the streets quite tragic and sad, and perhaps even looks down upon them, arrogant?

I personally would not, it's a completely natural human reaction and to be frank, I would class them as "better" than said drug addict.
Arrogance is defined as thinking such things AND acting in an offensive/derogatory/violent/etc way to the people you view yourself as "better" than, as far as I am aware.

If we look at two office workers, one perhaps marginally better at something than the other, and the "better" one looks down upon the other for being "worse", and ACTS UPON this, acting in a dickish manner, etc, I would then call that person arrogant

However if we look at the same people, one regards himself as better, but doesn't make a big deal out of it, is simply aware, and perhaps has a laugh and a joke about it with the other person "Oh I'm so damn good *wink*", they're not arrogant, merely confident.

If you yourself are interacting with a person and able to call them arrogant, you yourself are also being somewhat arrogant
If you yourself HAVE interacted with someone, thought about the interactions over time and calmed down about them (people very rarely do this), and then call them arrogant, it's more justifiable.
If you're an outside observer looking at a situation and you decide someone's arrogant, you're probably also justified

Of course, this depends on people actually -thinking- and having common sense, and sadly, common sense aint common.

Starwatcher said:

Yes, so? That hardly makes a difference. As I was saying, a subjective value is just as valid.

Do you grant that the Nazi's evaluations of human worth were valid?

It follows from your definition of valid as useful. This isn't an objection to the "validity", as you put it, of a measurement, I do think it's pointless though. Useful is a long way from truth in many cases, which is what I was really asking in the thread topic.

I mean, if it were useful for me (it made me feel good or got my book published or gave me comfort) to believe the Earth were 4000 years old, would that be valid also?

This definition of validity admits pluralism - the validity of a measurement can change over time and across cultures and people.

So should we have an international commission to decide the correct specification and assessments of "Human Being 1.0"? Even if we called the result "valid" and I got a score of 10/100, the "Human Being 2.0" specification could change it to say a 5/100.

You could argue that after a long series of "valid" measurements, your assessment will eventually converge to something that we could call objective. There's an entire philosophy behind this kind of reasoning, it's called pragmatism. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pragmatism

In any case, I'm not sure how validity is related to my original question - I was questioning the existence of an objective result. If you're only interested in the usefulness of such an assessment, I think the answer would be, obviously, yes. We could ask "to who"? Probably not the people scoring low on the test. Would it be useful to society? I don't know. To me, the idea of a place where humans go to be binned into categories of bad, ok and good (in the most general sense) is terrifying.

Starwatcher, on 22 December 2010 - 02:05 AM, said:

No, but the Nazis did.

Your question is flawed and does not relay your actualy meaning. When you ask if it can OBJECTIVELLY be measured, one could simply argue that reality is subjective and that there is no such thing as a truly objective measurement. Any value something is given is dependent on subjective assumptions by the observer. Ultimately, even science and maths are subjective.

Furthermore, the concepts of "right" and "wrong" or "good", "bad", "better" and "worse" are just as equally dependent on location, culture, history and more. You suggest in your argument that it is "wrong" to objectively give human beings a value, when "wrong" cannot be objectively defined either - just the point you are trying to make in relation to "better" or "worse".

Either we agree upon a set of conditions and work with REAL, subjective values which can be attained, or we can end the discussion on a nil answer: NOTHING can be objectively measured, therefore neither can human worth.
A more detailed explanation for my definition of "valid" would be something that can be discussed, something that isn't a logical fallacy nor a contradiction. Something useful for discussion. So VALID ways of measuring human worth CAN be attained and CAN be used. Later when the assumptions of society change, these measurements may be considered "bad" or "evil" (such as with the Nazis), but at the time they were enacted, the society which enacted them did consider it "good".

We can measure and judge people on any set of values, as long as those are previously stated. Whether we act upon our judgement or not will depend on a myriad of factors (for example, whether the majority of our society agrees with our judgement or not, whether we may regret our action in the future, whether our actions would breach basic human rights, etc.).

Another example where our society measures the worth and judges humans would be the court system, where a set of representatives from the population decide on the fate of a trialed individual based on their own sets of values.

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

How are science and math subjective, if the number that comes back on my ammeter is the same no matter who's running the experiment, and if (provided I explain adequately what I mean by the concepts involved) math proofs are true to anyone who reads them?

Gravity doesn't decide to push up or pull down depending on who's watching.

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

Now this is a good point - I guess either we have to figure out an objective definition of right and wrong, or say that any questions involving them don't make any sense. Of course, I could say that when we try to do things like rate human beings, bad things tend to happen, so we still shouldn't do it.

The original question, about our theoretical and practical abilities to rate human beings objectively still stands though.

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

This is a false dilemma - why do we have to give up our objectivity about absolutely everything when we find some cases where objectivity doesn't exist? A set of conditions for what? What do you mean by real?

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

What is your more detailed explanation of the term "valid"? Your last one seemed fine to me - you just said valid was useful, nothing more and nothing less.

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

But you didn't give me an argument for this. How do you get from your last statement to this one?

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

Alright, that's fine. Who considered those measurements good though? I know the Nazis did, but certainly not the people they were putting in ovens. How much agreement do you need before we can say something was good in it's time?

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

Yes, we can. Should we? Is it justified? That's the question I'm trying to get at here.

Migrant, on 22 December 2010 - 03:09 AM, said:

I never said that we can't pragmatically judge human beings ("validly" in your terms, or "usefully to us" in mine), just that the result won't be objective.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 22 December 2010 - 03:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia....r_of_experience

Thanks for the link Migrant, I enjoyed reading it. I found this part interesting:

Quote

Perhaps you could help me to understand this - is the point of the above that our experiences are all different? It seems to me that our experience of reality doesn't have much to do with the bare, underlying fact... or is the point that there's no such thing as fact without interpretation?

I agree that the Eskimo in the Arctic doesn't know about fire, to him it doesn't exist, but it exists independently of whether or not someone was there to notice it or not!

I looked up Nagel's original article in my philosophy book... it seems to be about how we can't imagine what it's like to be something other than what we are, because we're trapped by our subjectivity. I'm not sure how this applies to counting electrons or measuring magnetic fields though.

Have I missed the point here? Can someone help me understand?