3 ms·

> Noblesse oblige, while seeming to impose on the nobility a duty to behave nobly, conveniently provides the aristocracy with an apparent justification for thei

by js2 7y ago

> 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.

deogeo 7y ago
But meritocracy imposes no obligations.
bobthechef 7y ago
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.

by js2 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

But meritocracy imposes no obligations.

bobthechef 7y ago

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.