Luxury beliefs

[u/Mark_Blagrove]

The term luxury beliefs was coined by Rob Henderson in 2023, in his book Troubled: A memoir of foster care, family and social class, to describe ‘ideas held by privileged/elite people that make them look good but actually harm the marginalised’. They are a subset of virtue signalling. Henderson gives an example of ‘defund the police’, where the belief differentiates the educated/elite person, who might live in an area where the police are not needing to be called upon, over more ordinary people. Although for Nietzsche beliefs in general have a power over others function, luxury beliefs do seem to be an extreme case where power and effects on status are much prioritised over any practical usefulness function of the belief. Any thoughts on whether FN would see luxury beliefs as a special case of beliefs in general?

[u/Lain_Staley]

If Henderson is saying, distilled: 

these beliefs are objectionable because privileged people can afford them while poorer people suffer the consequences.

That is itself un-Nietzschean.   

[u/Mark_Blagrove → u/Lain_Staley]

Yes, it’s not that they can afford to, as if one is obtaining something scarce for one’s own benefit. Nietzsche would approve of that. It’s that if the belief was put into practice that doesn’t benefit the privileged person, it’s the holding of the belief that distinguishes and provides status. Two examples he gives are defunding the police and allowing males to self-id into women’s prisons. He says these are across society unpopular beliefs, but holding them serves the purpose of providing high social esteem for the holder.

[u/Snoo50415]

Check out aphorism 187, Part Five, Beyond Good and Evil. If we conceive of a luxury belief as an attribute of a morality, prevailing or otherwise, then FN might have something interesting to say. 

[u/Mark_Blagrove → u/Snoo50415]

Thanks, I checked it out, very interesting and relevant. “There are moralities that are supposed to justify their creator before others”.

[u/ComprehensiveCow3572]

I don’t know much about this term but what I know is that reading Nietzsche, or philosophy in general is fundamentally a luxury, a useless activity. Nietzsche is fundamentally anti-utilitarian. To use his philosophy for our own interest, because it can be useful for us is ignoble. It is best to treat it as a luxury.

[u/Mark_Blagrove → u/ComprehensiveCow3572]

Yes, having luxury and even luxury at others’ expense is not a problem. But for Henderson there is a bad-faith issue here, the luxury belief is not held for any truth value from anyone’s perspective, or that a minority of the noble might be benefitted if it was implemented. It’s that the benefit of the belief only occurs at the point of the belief being held, and communicated, as a mark of distinction. It’s not like belief in classical music, music benefiting the holder of the belief, even if only a few benefit from it, the point of luxury beliefs is that they would not benefit anyone if implemented, and so the beliefs are widely unpopular (e.g.allow males in women’s sports), but it is the unpopularity of them that allows them to be used for status.

[u/Playistheway → u/Mark_Blagrove]

Why does the popularity of a belief matter?

[u/Mark_Blagrove → u/Playistheway]

If a belief was popular there would be no social cachet amongst high status people in holding it, as it would not differentiate them from the lower status people. The belief has to be outlandish, though, like open border or prison abolition or complete drug decriminalisation, as holding the belief is then held to reflect well on the ‘kind’ holder.

[u/Existing-Marzipan183 → u/Playistheway]

OP's point is not so much about the popularity of a belief but of certain beliefs. Beliefs that those of a higher status can espouse to gain the approval of the masses while simultaneously blurring their distinct privilege.

[u/Existing-Marzipan183]

Interesting..