Neo-Aristocracy? Devil's advocate position

[Eiuol]

The other important idea is the cognitive role a leader plays for individuals. Seeing heroic individuals is needed to take heroism as more than only an abstract belief that is unattainable, or no one can recognize. DonAthos almost got at addressing this point, but seemed to end up as a discussion over what constitutes proper trust of leadership positions. Sure, whether or not an emperor would be able to legislate morality to any extent (or what it entails) is worth thinking about, it doesn't say if a government-backed moral leader is bad or good. If political principles aim at enabling the right kind of society for man's flourishing, then shouldn't that entail showing other people the evidence a moral ideal is possible by the same government power? The devil was built upon saying yes. An emperor based government would be best to do that.

I'd argue no way. Not because it offends me to see heroes, or because concretization of ideals is impossible. It's the implication  for the leader. Harrison sort of got at it, but latched onto a desire to control others, which I think misunderstood the aim. Embodying a person as the state itself may justify itself on grounds of individual heroism, but this is the core problem. It's not an obvious case of egalitarianism to "unify humanity" or something, so it's not as simple as saying "but this is just making society into a We". An emperor can be pretty cool and respectable, it just goes wrong when the emperor must take on a role as a non-creative individual. Indeed, we'd see power a la Putin, or Napolean. Maybe some respectable kings. But it's hard to argue that government is a creative entity - nor should it be creative with its role lest it create new roles besides the ones it was created to maintain. Business owners need to embody moral fortitude, except business is inherently creative.

I'm not saying there's potential for abuse, I'm saying it already goes to far. I'd appreciate more thoughts on the second paragraph.

 

[Cadence]

Your proposition is on the lines of Plato's men of gold/ the philosopher king. Is not moral and hence also not practical. Eventually power is concentrated in the hands of the aristocrats who have vested interest in enacting laws and regulations to keep the non-aristocrats backward and prevent them from rising.

[Eiuol]

The premise that power - whatever that is - leads to people wanting to keep others out is identical to the premise that having a lot of money leads people to prevent others from having a lot of money. It's a bad counterargument, or at least undermines any argument that capitalism is good.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Eiuol

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 12/13/2015 at 10:27 PM, Eiuol said:

The more important premise no one addressed is the cognitive role of seeing a head of state as a moral leader, using the government to enhance that role. I'll get to that next time.

At one point, Subaru almost went bankrupt (shortly after Greece nationalized their European factory). The CEO resigned. The man who replaced him was able to turn things around and start turning a profit, once again, after several years.

The Japanese Prime Minister gave him a medal for it. During the ceremony (for which they spared no expense) he didn't praise his public-spiritedness or denounce the rich, nor parrot how money is the root of all evil; the Prime Minister thanked him for all of the jobs he'd saved and all of the ways in which he was helping Japan, by keeping Subaru alive.

 

I think it's truly amazing that such things are done in Japan. I've considered moving there, a few times, simply because of the attitude it implies (although, in all my research, I still can't make heads or tails of how their legislature actually works). We don't do that in America. In America, if a pharmaceutical CEO openly admits to any kind of profit motive, the media draws little horns and a tail on him and the government starts looking for some law (like the Antitrust stuff) on which we can impale him.

 

Does this mean that I cannot personally treat successful businessmen with the proper respect?

 

PS:

 

The root of altruism is the identification of your own self-worth as a matter of other peoples' opinions - and, as Neitzsche correctly observed, altruism is for slaves.

It's one or the other; you can't want both.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold
Made my conclusion explicit.

[Eiuol]

Nothing was mentioned of if you can personally honor people, that the government ought to do it in all cases. The question is if the government should do it at all. The idea I started with is: what would happen if government took a role in moral leadership as part of its purpose? Not for "the good of man", but the heroism we speak of for egoists.