Noblesse Oblige

It feels like reading something like The Rebellion of the Masses would be a good idea (tkgshn).

• /tkgshn-private/Rebellion of the Masses

• When fundamentally classifying humans, they can be divided into two types. The first type consists of those who demand a lot from themselves, willingly take on challenges and responsibilities. The second type comprises those who do not have any special demands on themselves, for whom living is nothing more than a momentary continuum of their existing self-image. Therefore, they do not strive for self-improvement and are like drifting buoys at the mercy of the wind.

  • It may not be definitive, but it’s a reasonable way to categorize (blu3mo)

• For me, nobility is synonymous with brave lives that always transcend themselves, have an attitude of surpassing their established self towards what they strongly acknowledge as their duty and self-demands.

  • Indeed, a definition that seems to have some universality (blu3mo)

• In society, there are extremely diverse tasks, activities, and functions that are inherently special and require special talents to be carried out successfully. Examples include certain pleasures in the fields of art and luxury, administrative functions, and political judgments on public issues.

  • Are they arguing that the world wouldn’t function without the “nobles” doing these tasks? (blu3mo)
  • Yeah, this area is somewhat similar to the discussions in Atlas Shrugged too (tkgshn)

• The Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative are likely related (tkgshn)

20230401

• Still not fully convinced
  • Various elements are unclear, and the position of the argument is not understood
  • (Probably just a lack of understanding on my part)
• Probably able to explain the confusion better now, so writing it down
  • Question 1: What position does this argument take?
    • Assertion of facts?
      • People who do not fulfill their duties cannot remain “noblesse”
      • So paradoxically, those who continue to be “noblesse” fulfill their duties
    • Normative/ethical assertion?
      • In this case, there must be a definition of some “good actions” norm, and then the argument would be that noble people should do more of that
        • A bit meta (blu3mo)
      • If it’s a normative assertion, what reasons are believable?
  • Question 2: Who can be considered “noblesse”?
    • I think there is some kind of unequal “ranking of people” scale
      • But there is resistance to just claiming that “we are noblesse” without basis
        • This is emotional (blu3mo)
        • Emotional aversion to elitism
          • Is there something different from elitism?
    • Is it about inequality of opportunity or inequality of outcomes?
      • Equity and Equality

202207

• Not well understood (blu3mo)
• I have two interpretations within myself
  • Is this an ethical/normative assertion about the behavior of “noblesse”?
    • I’ve been interpreting it this way all along (rickshinmi)(kaya)
  • Or is it an explanation of the fact that one cannot remain “noblesse” without fulfilling duties?
    • Like a social contract theory (you get overthrown if you don’t fulfill your duties)
    • I hadn’t thought about this perspective (tkgshn)(tkgshn)
• Which one could it be? (blu3mo)