| Noblesse Oblige (lit. "Nobility Obliges") is a belief that anyone in a position of power or nobility has an obligation and social responsibility to help those that are less privileged. It is a call to act noble and honourable & that with privilege comes a responsibility and duty to the greater good. This was the backbone of Toryism in the commonwealth through in 19th century and has since, in some respects, waned in Conservatism through the later 20th and 21st centuries, so my questions are as follows:
Let them discuss and eat cake. |
 I love Christine "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau |
| Is this seriously even a question? Of course being nice to others is a good thing. Why would it not? |
| Down with the capitalist system I say, anarchy is the only way to go. |
 |
| Unfortunately, no one is really "obligated" to do anything, not unless there's a law stating that they must do something or face consequences, but then they'll just be doing whatever they're required to do simply because they have to, not out of the kindness of their hearts. I think it's a good concept in itself, but I'm not fan of faux and forced generosity/kindness. |
 |
| They got rich off of a society. If they didn't have that 'setting', they wouldn't be rich. Society builds on cooperation. They have to. I'd rather keep the PC stuff out of this. |
| Nobody should be obligated or feel its their duty to help those that are less privililged. By that last part, I mean to say that nobody should be enforced the idea that it is their duty to help so. Of course, if someone feels so because he/she legitimately wants to help, then thats great and totally encouraged. But it should be because you want to and not because of some value by which society judges. |
 meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
| >french pseudo-intellectual phrase >"socio-economic" >le funny intellectual maymay and the "most pretentious thread of the day" award goes to you, OP. Congrats. |
 |
Ravioli_Ravioli said: I love you Donger, you figured out my plan.>french pseudo-intellectual phrase >"socio-economic" >le funny intellectual maymay and the "most pretentious thread of the day" award goes to you, OP. Congrats. |
I love Christine "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau |
ThrashMatto said: Human society has always turned to some sort of leadership. Which in turned has implied positive action through ideology or what was believed necessary. If you look at this towards modern day equivalents you'll see that the president, congressman and civil servants of all stations derive their authority for the sake of the public good. Yea, I know it isn't always this in practice and many find themselves the victims of corruption and abuse, But if you believe something is wrong with the idea of someone taking office, which is paid for by your scarce income should not be compelled to oversee his station honestly you are a carrier of the disease that has created some much pain and hardship.Noblesse Oblige (lit. "Nobility Obliges") is a belief that anyone in a position of power or nobility has an obligation and social responsibility to help those that are less privileged. It is a call to act noble and honourable & that with privilege comes a responsibility and duty to the greater good. This was the backbone of Toryism in the commonwealth through in 19th century and has since, in some respects, waned in Conservatism through the later 20th and 21st centuries, so my questions are as follows:
Let them discuss and eat cake. |
| I think it's a good concept, but it will cause a major change in society. Currently we live Rapture-style where our individuality and successes are cherished. Moving to Noblesse Oblige changes everything and the meaning of 'success'. The thing about it is that it will require many people to work hard, to hold themselves back for another. How moral is it? |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Please don't forget that "Noblesse Obliges" only applies to people who have money and status. People believed that noblemen have more values and more education. Because of that conception, noblemen had different interrogation, poor people were tortured because people believed that poor people only tell the truth when tortured. |
 |
| Noblesse oblige is very important In Eden of The East (anime). I was expecting some action like snipers aiming for me, while reading this post. 😎 |
| I don't follow. Why help the less privileged? Power is earned and if they don't have any of their own they wouldn't deserve any from me. |
  There's a lady who's sure All that glitters is gold And she's buying a stairway to heaven When she gets there she knows If the stores are all closed With a word she can get what she came for Oh oh oh oh and she's buying a stairway to heaven |
Handsome-Jack said: I don't follow. Why help the less privileged? Power is earned and if they don't have any of their own they wouldn't deserve any from me. A child born into a rich family doesn't earn his/her power. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: someone before them earned it, doesn't necessarily have to be the person that holds it.Handsome-Jack said: I don't follow. Why help the less privileged? Power is earned and if they don't have any of their own they wouldn't deserve any from me. A child born into a rich family doesn't earn his/her power. |
There's a lady who's sure All that glitters is gold And she's buying a stairway to heaven When she gets there she knows If the stores are all closed With a word she can get what she came for Oh oh oh oh and she's buying a stairway to heaven |
| Lol why should the rich be obliged to help the poor? It's just pure bullshit lmao. |
hoopla123 said: Lol why should the rich be obliged to help the poor? It's just pure bullshit lmao. Handsome-Jack said: I don't follow. Why help the less privileged? Power is earned and if they don't have any of their own they wouldn't deserve any from me. Because the rich can't get rich without the society. There power comes because of this vessel we know as society; there's a certain limit to how much a man can spend, or there should be, on himself. Ultimately, a rich man will be spending his money on the society in exchange of luxuries. The only thing worth obliging is that the rich man mustn't be a miser; as that would not only be in societies disinterest but also of his own. However, I do concur that it's a bit hypocritical on behalf of society. Society itself unduly favors a few demographics such as actors, singers, sportsman, models, politicians etc, and then demands reparations for its own injustices. Nonetheless, it's in the best interest of the society and hence the individual that the nobility must be willing to spend; and also in charity. |
Handsome-Jack said: TheBrainintheJar said: someone before them earned it, doesn't necessarily have to be the person that holds it.A child born into a rich family doesn't earn his/her power. The person who became rich earned their power. A child born into wealth didn't earn it. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| i once fed my dog my dog cant put the food in the bowl by himself i did it since he couldnt i am the future of nobility |
ModeratelyHuman said: Is this seriously even a question? Of course being nice to others is a good thing. Why would it not? It can be a good thing, but is it practical? |
| Yes, it is a good concept. TheBrainintheJar said: I think it's a good concept, but it will cause a major change in society. Currently we live Rapture-style where our individuality and successes are cherished. Moving to Noblesse Oblige changes everything and the meaning of 'success'. The thing about it is that it will require many people to work hard, to hold themselves back for another. How moral is it? 1) No part of the concept of "Noblesse Oblige" means you have to hold yourself back. Remember - it's up to you to decide what to do with the resources under your control. Would you donate some to end hunger in Africa, or would you build a better spaceship? Both are perfectly valid expressions of the concept, as both benefit humanity in ways poorer people wouldn't be able to accomplish. 2) There is only so much happiness a person can get on their own. Helping other people is a good way to having friends, popularity and similar things. Accomplishing great things that other people will appreciate for generations to come is something you can be proud of, a lot more than the number of dollars in your bank accounts. 3) Economical and social well-being of the place you live in is probably the main factor in crime rate. Would you rather always go with a squad of bodyguards and an armored car, or would you prefer it when you can safely walk the streets when you want to? Sure, that's what we have laws and police for. Do you know rich people have a lot of influence on laws? shintai88 said: each for them selves is the way forward. Follow who ever will benefit you, that is the way of democracy. that is the way of dictatorships, that is they way of kings and emperors. I fail to follow your line of thought. Could you separate which forms of politics are compatible with noblesse oblige, and which one require rugged individualism? |
| Being nice to others is obviously a good thing, but people have no obligation to help others. The rich people is already helpig people by creating job and keeoing the economy going, so to require them to help out the lesser privilage even more is just asking for too much. |
WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS. |
flannan said: shintai88 said: each for them selves is the way forward. Follow who ever will benefit you, that is the way of democracy. that is the way of dictatorships, that is they way of kings and emperors. I fail to follow your line of thought. Could you separate which forms of politics are compatible with noblesse oblige, and which one require rugged individualism? Noblesse oblige wouldnt be compatible with any form of politics because it is simply an ideal that the ones with ability SHOULD help out others. You could argue that socialism and communism would be competitable, but in those society, there are no one with ability since it is all given to the state |
| WHEN IT RAINS, IT POURS. |
| I think it's morphed into pathological altruism for "the other" at the expense of the nation's people. How's it working out for ye Europe? A/ Beneficial in a homogenous culture. Catastrophic in a muliculture B/ Kick out all the wogs and other unuseful interlopers, introduce trade tariffs and bring back manufacturing to your own people instead of outsourcing everything. Create tax incentives for companies that employ local people and heavy penalties for those who outsource, and incentives for small businesses. C/ No. Conservatives and Liberals are more or less both self-serving pigs of the same colour with different branding. They don't give a shit about the people they claim to represent, imported or domestic. They are only vote fodder and occasionally useful for furthering one agenda or another. D/ I suppose in a sense. A traditionalist with fascist tendencies. E/ No. The way to address racism is segregation if not a monoracial society. That is best for everyone. The way to tackle sexism is to dismantle feminism and ensure the survival of the traditional family. Sjws are dangerous trouble making trash and should be ovened, that is real social justice. |
FahtahSensei said: A/ Beneficial in a homogenous culture. Catastrophic in a muliculture You make it sound like rich people and poor people have the same culture. They obviously aren't. Also, are you sure you aren't Volkthedeuche or what his name was? |
flannan said: FahtahSensei said: A/ Beneficial in a homogenous culture. Catastrophic in a muliculture You make it sound like rich people and poor people have the same culture. They obviously aren't. Also, are you sure you aren't Volkthedeuche or what his name was? Perhaps I should have said monoracial. And western culture is western culture regardless of socio-economic bracket. I don't know the person you refer to. |
FahtahSensei said: flannan said: You make it sound like rich people and poor people have the same culture. They obviously aren't. Also, are you sure you aren't Volkthedeuche or what his name was? Perhaps I should have said monoracial. And western culture is western culture regardless of socio-economic bracket. I don't know the person you refer to. Oh, now it's easier to understand. And here I thought you had a shred of decency. Sorry for misjudging you. I'll be facepalming here in the corner if you need me. |
flannan said: FahtahSensei said: Perhaps I should have said monoracial. And western culture is western culture regardless of socio-economic bracket. I don't know the person you refer to. Oh, now it's easier to understand. And here I thought you had a shred of decency. Sorry for misjudging you. I'll be facepalming here in the corner if you need me. I won't be needing you anytime soon. |
flannan said: Yes, it is a good concept. TheBrainintheJar said: I think it's a good concept, but it will cause a major change in society. Currently we live Rapture-style where our individuality and successes are cherished. Moving to Noblesse Oblige changes everything and the meaning of 'success'. The thing about it is that it will require many people to work hard, to hold themselves back for another. How moral is it? 1) No part of the concept of "Noblesse Oblige" means you have to hold yourself back. Remember - it's up to you to decide what to do with the resources under your control. Would you donate some to end hunger in Africa, or would you build a better spaceship? Both are perfectly valid expressions of the concept, as both benefit humanity in ways poorer people wouldn't be able to accomplish. 2) There is only so much happiness a person can get on their own. Helping other people is a good way to having friends, popularity and similar things. Accomplishing great things that other people will appreciate for generations to come is something you can be proud of, a lot more than the number of dollars in your bank accounts. 3) Economical and social well-being of the place you live in is probably the main factor in crime rate. Would you rather always go with a squad of bodyguards and an armored car, or would you prefer it when you can safely walk the streets when you want to? Sure, that's what we have laws and police for. Do you know rich people have a lot of influence on laws? shintai88 said: each for them selves is the way forward. Follow who ever will benefit you, that is the way of democracy. that is the way of dictatorships, that is they way of kings and emperors. I fail to follow your line of thought. Could you separate which forms of politics are compatible with noblesse oblige, and which one require rugged individualism? You will still holding yourself back in some ways. Your life will consist more of altruistic behavior than ways to profit for yourself. A society that emphasize noblesse oblige is less about personal success than how much you can contribute. That means that individual rights don't matter as much. Again, that's not a bad thing in and of itself because you sacrifice this individuality and get something in return. It just demands a a paradigm shift. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
More topics from this board
» Was there ever a moment you had to defend yourself from an attacker?PrayToVeseveia - Sep 3 |
6 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» What is the main reason you joined MAL or other forums? ( 1 2 )LabMemberX - Sep 3 |
51 |
by LabMemberX
»»
34 minutes ago |
|
» Would you rather date someone attractive but awfully boring, or someone ugly but extremely funny? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Sep 3 |
87 |
by x_scolopendra_x
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» I curse you to constantly relive the same year of your life on repeat, but you get to choose which one. What's your pick?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
28 |
by x_scolopendra_x
»»
58 minutes ago |
|
» What type of people naturally gravitate towards you?PrayToVeseveia - Yesterday |
11 |
by Noboru
»»
2 hours ago |