Topics Value

Question Pride gets a bad rap in theology and folk wisdom: It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and we are told that "Pride goeth before a fall". But it seems to me that a lack of pride can be just as bad, too. And some forms of pride can be good. The belief that some things are beneath one's dignity might keep one from committing certain immoral acts or lapsing into certain degrading conditions. Isn't pride a capacious category that contains both beneficial forms (such as self-respect) and pernicious forms (such as arrogance and egotism)?

Accepted:
November 22, 2006

Comments

I do agree with you; a measure of self-esteem is essential. The problem may be a simple one: 'pride' in modern English has an ambiguity about it, meaning both to be perfectly acceptably pleased about one's achievements, but it also means to be too proud. In previous centuries, however, this ambiguity was not so marked, and the primary meaning was the latter.

That simple answer, though, still leaves us with the problem of when does the morally acceptable mode of pride shade over into the unacceptable. I’ll suggest, sketchily, a couple possible solutions. One answer might be when the prideful state has moral consequences: when for example my prideful state leads me to side-step moral rules and be hurtful to others. Still another answer would be when pride is vain; that is, when it is unjustified. The reason why this might be considered unacceptable is that it violates the moral regard I should have to myself. If I can be said to have a moral duty to myself, a duty to care for and develop myself, vanity would render this duty difficult or even impossible to fulfil.