Noblesse Oblige

Somehow, it feels like reading The Revolt of the Masses would be a good idea (tkgshn).

• /tkgshn-private/大衆の反逆

• If we classify humans fundamentally, they can be divided into two types:

• The first type is people who demand a lot from themselves and willingly take on difficulties and obligations. The second type is people who have no special demands on themselves, for whom living is nothing more than a momentary continuity of their existing self, and therefore they do not make any effort towards self-fulfillment. They are like drifters who float along with the wind.

  • I’m not sure if it’s fundamental, but it’s a reasonable way to categorize (blu3mo).

• For me, nobility refers to those who constantly transcend themselves, have the attitude of going beyond their established self towards something they strongly recognize as their duty and demand for themselves, and are brave synonyms for courageous life.

  • I see, a definition that seems to have some universality (blu3mo).

• In society, there are extremely diverse tasks, activities, and functions that are inherently special and therefore cannot be performed properly without special talents. Examples include artistic and luxurious pleasures, administrative functions, and political judgments on public issues.

  • Is the argument here that these things won’t work if the “nobility” doesn’t do them? (blu3mo)
  • Yeah, this is like Atlas Shrugged (laughs) (tkgshn)

• I think things like Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative are related (tkgshn)

20230401

• I still don’t understand it.
  • Various elements are ambiguous, and I don’t know where the argument stands.
  • (Maybe it’s just my lack of understanding.)
• Maybe I can explain the confusion better now, so I’ll write it down.
  • Question 1: What is the position of this argument?
    • Is it an assertion of facts?
      • People who don’t fulfill their obligations cannot remain “noblesse.”
      • So conversely, people who continue to be “noblesse” fulfill their obligations, something like that.
    • Is it an assertion of norms/ethics?
      • In this case, there is a definition of some kind of “good behavior” norm as a premise, and then the argument becomes that “noblesse” should do it more.
        • A bit meta (blu3mo).
      • If it’s an assertion of norms, what reasons are convincing?
  • Question 2: Who can be considered “noblesse”?
    • I think there must be some unequal scale of “people’s rank.”
      • But I resist when they claim it themselves and say, “We are noblesse.”
        • This is an emotional response (blu3mo).
        • Emotional aversion to elitism.
          • Is there something different from elitism?
    • Is it about inequality of opportunity or inequality of outcome?
      • Equity and Equality

202207

• I don’t understand it well (blu3mo).
• I have two interpretations within myself.
  • Is this an ethical/normative claim about the actions of “noblesse”?
    • I’ve been understanding it this way all along (rickshinmi)(kaya).
  • Or is it an explanation of the fact that if you don’t fulfill your obligations, you can’t remain “noblesse”?
    • Like a social contract theory (if you don’t fulfill your obligations, you’ll be overthrown).
    • I didn’t consider this one (tkgshn)(tkgshn).
• Which one is it? (blu3mo)