
Noblesse Oblige - moorebrb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noblesse_oblige
======
js2
> Noblesse oblige, while seeming to impose on the nobility a duty to behave
> nobly, conveniently provides the aristocracy with an apparent justification
> for their privilege.

So too with meritocracy:

 _If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that
their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve
whatever they can get.

They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had
achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as
somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can
actually believe they have morality on their side._

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment)

Either justification is cognitive dissonance at work as humans try to
rationalize injustice. At least a meritocratic system theoretically provides
more people access to riches.

~~~
bobthechef
In any case, monarchy traditionally was highly constrained by the nobility, by
tradition, by considerations relating to the continuation of the dynasty, by
the life-long preparation to assume the throne, by royal councils, and so on,
not to mention constrained by the nature of the kind of authority it is just
as all authority is constrained. And in line with what you wrote, while
someone who ascended the throne could appeal to the right to rule, that right
was not rooted in his own merit. If you were a Christian king, you would
recognize that your authority was only derivative, and granted through and
constrained by the grace of God (John 19:11 comes to mind). Any glory of the
king was a glory his people partook in (1 Corinthians 12:26). This belief in
the origin of authority rooted in and derived solely from divine will both
humbled the king and gave him the confidence needed to act within the narrow
confined of the monarchy. Obviously, not all kings were equally morally
scrupulous, but the belief that monarchies are worse is highly dubious, if not
flatly wrong. Even in Europe today where constitutional monarchies survive,
countries with monarchies are socially more stable than those without because
the highest uniting figure in the country is above partisan squabbling.

------
overgard
This makes me think of "Skin in the Game" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. I think
noblesse oblige arises naturally when powerful people have skin in the game,
and it doesn't arise at all when they do not.

Arguably, while globalism may have some upsides, one of its biggest downsides
is that the most powerful people have very little skin in the game at all.

~~~
bobthechef
No, skin in the game is merely the intertwining of self-interest. Taleb is
talking about ways to incentivize those with power, authority, whatever to act
in conformity with the common good by entwining their good with the good of
everyone else such that a loss to any party is a loss to both parties.
Noblesse oblige is about one's higher moral obligations toward others as a
person of noble rank, full stop, such that the person in question lived up to
the noble ideal of magnanimity.

Incidentally, as it turns out, people are social in nature and thus
contribution to the common good (when it is truly such in keeping with one's
own good) is by definition common. Thus, what Taleb is talking about is the
narrow understanding of the common good. A "powerful" person who doesn't give
a crap about the common good and actually does harm to it is actually harming
himself by harming the society he is a part of. Taleb is suggesting that we
deal with such people in positions of authority by working to entwine their
interests (monetary, in his case) with the interests of others.

------
interfixus
A well attested quote from Danish nobleman and admiral Herluf Trolle (1516 -
1565) [my hasty, naive, and insufficient translation]:

 _Do you know why we are called lords, why we have golden chains and earthly
property and are held in greater esteem than others? Because when king and
sovereign, country and realm have need, then we must ward against the enemies
of the land, protect and shield with all our powers and possessions our
fatherland, so that our subjects may live and exist in peace and quietude.
Yea, if we wish the sweet, we must also take the sour_

No empty words, those. Trolle died from injuries sustained in a naval battle,
refusing treatment until his men had been looked after. The past does have its
moments.

------
badrabbit
I see this term used a lot in Korean dramas by 'Chaebol' type characters,
always wondered what exactly they meant.

~~~
tc313
I often see it used ironically in the United States (for instance, to refer to
a large charitable donation with precise instructions on how the money can be
used -- surely for the good of the recipient!).

