> "why do you seem to posit that he should do that as a moral obligation?"
Because otherwise they become tyrants.
We're talking about the most powerful, most influential demographic in a particular place, whether that's Western European in the US or Han-Chinese in China. There is a dominant group that gets a tremendous amount of decision-making power, and those in power have the moral obligation of having perspective.
Because without understanding and perspective you don't just get silliness, you get real harm - "The poor are poor because they're too lazy to work" is a silly thought, until it influences policy, and then it becomes tragedy.
There is absolutely a moral obligation to seek perspective (cast another, understand one's own privilege), and this goes double if your race/religion/etc grants you power over others.
> those in power have the moral obligation of having perspective.
> There is absolutely a moral obligation to seek perspective (cast another, understand one's own privilege), and this goes double if your race/religion/etc grants you power over others.
Again, I ask why[1]. What precisely gives that moral imperative? My readings in history do not suggest to me that this ethical stricture has been a constant throughout history.
[1] 5 Whys, Question Everything, etc. Don't take it personally please.
> "My readings in history do not suggest to me that this ethical stricture has been a constant throughout history."
Does it have to be? Slavery was the social norm for thousands of years and has only been widely considered unacceptable for perhaps <5% of recorded civilization.
Ditto race equality - we consider it a moral imperative today, but for thousands of years it was not really a thing.
The notion of morality evolves over time - the fact that a moral conclusion is new does not in and of itself make it less, well, imperative.
But there's also the flip side - in this case this is something that has been considered a moral imperative in history. The concept that the rulers have a moral obligation to be informed and just is well supported by historical societies.
Back when we gave power to people based on familial relations, we called this the noblesse oblige[1]. The concept was also applied to other figures of power, such as the monarchy. The concept is mixed up with a lot of notions that one might find offensive today (e.g., that the masses are unable to rule themselves and from which derives the obligation and responsibility to rule fairly in their stead).
Nowadays we don't give out power based on family (much), we do it instead based on wealth and many other secondary factors - race and religion being large among them.
Because otherwise they become tyrants.
We're talking about the most powerful, most influential demographic in a particular place, whether that's Western European in the US or Han-Chinese in China. There is a dominant group that gets a tremendous amount of decision-making power, and those in power have the moral obligation of having perspective.
Because without understanding and perspective you don't just get silliness, you get real harm - "The poor are poor because they're too lazy to work" is a silly thought, until it influences policy, and then it becomes tragedy.
There is absolutely a moral obligation to seek perspective (cast another, understand one's own privilege), and this goes double if your race/religion/etc grants you power over others.