Why the Conduct of Those Who Govern Human Society Deserves This Name
Introduction
In human society, error, ignorance, selfishness and the abuse of power have always existed. However, they are not all the same. Sometimes, a person does not know and is aware of their ignorance. If such a person is honest, they can say: “I do not know, but I must try to know.” This kind of admission of ignorance can open a path towards knowledge, correction and the acceptance of responsibility.
Yet sometimes a person or an institution “does not know”, but refuses to accept that they do not know. They conceal their ignorance, use their position as a shield, fail to answer rational questions, and present their silence as a form of dignity, neutrality, caution or institutional standing. Here, we are not merely dealing with ignorance. We are dealing with an ignorance that is tainted by power, arrogance and the evasion of accountability.
This is what this article calls “hubris”.
Hubris, in this sense, is not merely an individual flaw. It is an epistemic, political and institutional disease which, when embedded in structures of power, can leave society defenceless against injustice. For an institution marked by hubris does not merely refuse to answer; it refuses to recognise the question itself.
Therefore, if we are to understand the silence of those who govern human society in the face of fundamental questions about peace, justice, law, education and injustice, we must understand the concept of hubris precisely.
1. The Definition of Hubris
Hubris means an individual or institutional sense of superiority which makes a person or institution regard itself as exempt from accountability, questioning, criticism, admitting ignorance and admitting mistakes.
A person marked by hubris does not merely consider themselves more important than others. They see themselves as occupying a position in which others seemingly have no right to question them, call them to account, or expose their ignorance.
An institution marked by hubris acts in the same way. It regards itself as so authoritative, official, grand or sacred that it does not see answering the question of a citizen, a philosopher, a critic or a suffering human being as its duty. Such an institution may issue statements, hold ceremonies, deliver speeches, write laws, build buildings and speak of responsibility; but when a fundamental question is placed before it, it remains silent.
Here, hubris means that “official position” has taken the place of reason, “title” has taken the place of an answer, and “power” has taken the place of truth.
2. The Difference Between Hubris and Selfishness
Selfishness and hubris are connected, but they are not the same.
Selfishness means that a person places their own interests, comfort, desires or position above the rights and needs of others. A selfish person may know that another person has a right, yet still prefer their own benefit. Selfishness is mostly concerned with the centrality of the “I”: for me, my profit, my comfort, my power, my position.
But hubris is a more dangerous stage than selfishness. Hubris is not merely placing oneself above another; hubris means that a person or institution places itself beyond questioning, criticism and accountability. A selfish person may violate the right of another; but a person marked by hubris even deprives the other of the right to ask questions.
In short:
Selfishness diminishes the right of another; hubris deprives them of the right to ask.
Selfishness says: I am more important.
Hubris says: I stand so high above you that you have no right to question me.
Hubris can therefore be understood as a more dangerous and more institutional form of selfishness, especially when selfishness is combined with power, position, official title and institutional immunity.
In this sense, selfishness may be the root, but hubris is its institutional fruit. When selfishness dons the robes of office, official knowledge, political power, judicial standing or international prestige, it can transform into hubris.
3. A Dangerous Combination: Ignorance, Arrogance, Power and the Refusal of Accountability
Hubris must be distinguished from simple pride or ordinary self-aggrandisement. Hubris is dangerous because it combines several elements.
Hubris is precisely the combination of ignorance + arrogance + power + the refusal of accountability. In this combination, the four elements function as follows:
- Ignorance, because the institution or official marked by hubris does not know the real answer.
- Arrogance, because they refuse to accept that they do not know.
- Power, because they possess a position behind which they can hide their silence or evasion.
- The refusal of accountability, because they see the question but do not allow it to enter dialogue.
In practice, these four elements lead to the illusion of institutional immunity. An institution marked by hubris assumes that its position exempts it from answering, defining, reasoning and admitting ignorance.
Hubris turns not knowing into a catastrophe, because ignorance sits in the position of power and evades criticism.
A person who does not know may be awakened by a question. But a person or institution marked by hubris evades questions, because a question exposes their ignorance.
4. Epistemic Hubris
One of the most dangerous forms of hubris is epistemic hubris.
Epistemic hubris means that a person or institution refuses to accept that they do not know, and presents their ignorance as knowledge, expertise or official authority.
A clear historical example of this is the report of the 49 masters of medicine in Paris on the plague in the fourteenth century. They did not know the real cause of the plague, but from a position of scientific authority in their time, they presented their ignorance as official knowledge. This example is examined in more detail in the treatise Injustice is the Plague of Human Society.
The issue there was not merely not knowing. The issue was that ignorance produced illusions which were presented to society from a position of scientific authority. Ordinary people and the scholarly circles of that era took such illusions seriously, because they were issued by a credible institution and officially recognised scholars.
In the report of the 49 masters of medicine in Paris on the plague, epistemic hubris was at work: ignorance dressed itself as knowledge. Ignorance is not merely an absence of knowledge; ignorance can produce illusions, and when such illusions are presented to society from a position of scientific authority, people come to regard them as knowledge.
Today, this same danger exists in the realms of justice, peace, law, morality and politics. Many institutions speak of human rights, peace, justice and law, but when asked what the precise meaning of these concepts is, where the source of injustice is, or what kind of education can lead to the full development of the human personality, they fall silent or take refuge in logical fallacies.
In such a situation, institutions may put their aspirations, slogans and programmes on paper and consider that to be “work”, without showing how those aspirations are to be turned into tangible results through knowledge, scientific method and wise work.
Speaking of concepts that have not been defined, producing the illusion of knowing, putting “slogans” in the place of “work”, and then evading questions about those very concepts, is itself a form of epistemic hubris.
5. Institutional Hubris
Institutional hubris arises when an institution uses its official position as a shield against accountability.
An institution marked by hubris may present itself as democratic, legal, educational, international or humanitarian. But the true criterion is not the name or title of the institution. The criterion is what it does when confronted with a rational question.
If the institution answers, enters into dialogue, gives reasons, offers definitions, accepts criticism, or at least says, “we do not know and must investigate”, the path of wisdom is still open.
But if the institution remains silent, ignores the question, takes refuge in formalities, or evades answering by means of its title and position, institutional hubris is revealed.
Institutional hubris means that the institution, instead of considering itself a servant of truth, justice and humanity, places itself above them all.
In such a situation, the citizen is no longer faced with a mistaken individual. They are faced with a structure that has turned refusing to answer into normal behaviour. This is where silence becomes organised, and the violation of human rights becomes the natural consequence of such a structure.
6. Political Hubris
In politics, hubris becomes apparent when a politician or political institution substitutes electoral support, position, title, majority, executive power or representative standing for truth and accountability.
A politician marked by hubris may speak of the people, justice, freedom, peace, democracy, law and human rights, but when asked what these concepts mean exactly and how they must be upheld in practice, they fall silent, issue slogans, or resort to logical fallacies.
Political hubris means that a political figure sees themselves as standing so high that they do not deem it necessary to answer a citizen’s question. In such a situation, politics is no longer a service to order and justice; politics becomes the management of position, the preservation of public image, and the evasion of responsibility.
This type of hubris is highly dangerous, because politics is an instrument for governing collective life. When a politician is marked by hubris, injustice does not remain merely an individual error; it permeates all pillars of society. In other words, political hubris institutionalises injustice.
7. Legal and Judicial Hubris
Legal and judicial hubris arises when the law, a court or a legal authority considers itself beyond questions about justice. A legal and judicial structure must possess a profound understanding of justice, because justice and order constitute the two pillars of every True Law. If a legal enactment lacks justice, or if justice is removed from it, that enactment, from the perspective of True Philosophy, is not law, but Non-law; that is, an official form which gives injustice a superficial legal validity within the legal structure.
If a court lacks a profound understanding of justice and its function in law, it cannot judge on the basis of truth and Right. In such a situation, the court has merely preserved the outward appearance of judgement. If a legal authority remains silent in the face of a citizen’s question regarding access to justice, or leaves them wandering in endless administrative labyrinths, legal hubris has occurred.
Judicial hubris means that the judiciary or the legal structure, instead of considering itself an instrument for the realisation of justice, considers itself the exclusive holder of the right to judge and evades accountability to the citizen.
This hubris becomes even more dangerous when the power structure obstructs the citizen’s access to a fully independent court, yet at the same time strikes the pose of the rule of law. In such a situation, the separation of powers turns into a political or legal façade, rather than a real instrument for restraining power and defending the citizen.
If the citizen cannot lodge a complaint against the power structure itself before an independent court, the rule of law is paralysed. Here, injustice moves beyond the level of an isolated error and turns into structural injustice resistant to reform.
8. Hubris and Organised Silence
Organised silence is one of the main signs of institutional hubris.
Not every silence is hubris. Sometimes, silence stems from lack of awareness, inability, fear, pressure or confusion. But when a clear, rational and documented question is repeatedly raised, and an institution that has a duty to answer provides no response, the silence is no longer ordinary or accidental. This silence becomes a defensive behaviour used to evade accountability. A concrete example of this organised silence is documented on the page The Silence of the UN Secretary-General.
Through its silence, an institution marked by hubris says:
- I am not obliged to answer.
- Your question is not of a kind that can compel someone in my position to respond.
- I can speak, but you have no right to call upon me to offer a definition, give reasons and accept responsibility.
Organised silence is not neutrality, not dignity and not caution. Organised silence is itself an erosive form of injustice and a manifestation of institutional hubris. A more detailed explanation of this mechanism can be found in the treatise Injustice is the Plague of Human Society.
The higher the position of an institution, the more influential and dangerous its silence becomes. The silence of an ordinary individual may merely be a sign of not knowing. But the silence of an institution responsible for peace, justice, law or human rights can turn into a mechanism for the reproduction of injustice.
9. Hubris and the Inability to Say “I Do Not Know”
One of the criteria for recognising a wise person is the ability to say “I do not know”.
Saying “I do not know” is not a sign of weakness. If it is accompanied by a commitment to seeking knowledge, it is the beginning of wisdom. A wise person or institution can say: “I do not know, but I must try to know.”
But hubris does not allow such a sentence to be uttered. A person or institution marked by hubris is afraid of saying “I do not know”, because they assume that admitting that they do not know lowers their standing. Therefore, they either provide a baseless answer, resort to logical fallacies, or ignore the rational question through silence.
In all three cases, hubris obstructs the practice of wisdom and, consequently, prevents the resolution of problems. In such a situation:
- A doctor marked by hubris does not say: “I do not know the cause of the disease.”
- A politician marked by hubris does not say: “I do not know the meaning of peace.”
- A legal expert marked by hubris does not say: “I do not have a precise definition of justice.”
- An institution marked by hubris does not say: “I do not know, but I must know. It is strange that I have not thought about this matter until now. I must reconsider my way of thinking.”
As a result of this hubris, errors are not corrected; they persist, and society pays the price.
10. Hubris and Injustice
Hubris is not merely a psychological or linguistic problem. Hubris is one of the mechanisms for the reproduction of injustice.
Hubris prevents the responsible institution from seeing itself as part of the problem. In such a situation, cognitive biases also serve hubris. The Ostrich Effect causes the institution to avoid seeing unpleasant reality. The Bias Blind Spot prevents the institution from seeing its own biases, while allowing it to continue seeing itself as impartial, rational and responsible. Self-serving Bias causes it to attribute successes to itself, but failures and injustices to others, crises or enemies. Confirmation Bias also causes it to see only the part of reality that confirms its beliefs, the official narrative and its own position.
11. Why Should Officials Be Asked to Come Down from Hubris?
If an office, institution, government, parliament, court or international organisation places itself beyond questioning, dialogue becomes impossible. Without dialogue, accountability disappears. Without accountability, the responsibility to establish justice is debased and hollowed out. And when responsibility is debased, justice becomes the first casualty of hubris.
Therefore, the demand to end hubris is not a personal or emotional demand. It is a demand to return institutions to their true place, so that the path to accountability, acceptance of responsibility and the establishment of justice can be opened.
A god-like position, or an absolute and unquestionable scientific, legal or political authority, is not the place of the human being. No office, title, building, flag, law, university, parliament or international organisation exempts a person or institution from accountability to rational questions.
- If an institution speaks of peace, it must define peace.
- If it speaks of justice, it must define justice.
- If it speaks of human rights, it must show what education is required for respect for human rights.
- If it speaks of law, it must clarify the path by which human beings can access justice.
Coming down from hubris means returning to earth, returning to dialogue, returning to accountability, and returning to truth.
Conclusion
Selfishness diminishes the right of another; hubris deprives them of the right to ask.
Selfishness can lead to individual oppression, but when hubris takes root in structures of power, it makes injustice structural. An institution marked by hubris may not know, but it does not want to admit that it does not know. It not only lacks an answer; it evades accountability. It not only makes errors; it uses its position as a shield against criticism, and this shield allows the error to remain uncorrected and continue.
In a world where war, poverty, repression, the humiliation of human beings, the destruction of nature and the violation of human rights persist, the hubris of responsible institutions is not a secondary problem. Hubris is one of the main obstacles to understanding and treating injustice.
Until those who govern human society, whether at the national or international level, come down from their god-like position, return to earth, and become answerable to rational questions, their silence will remain part of the mechanism for the reproduction of injustice.