I'm trying to figure out how to write a character that has a radically different worldview from my own while still keeping it logically consistent. I know there are a lot of questions about how to write characters that have different experiences from your own, but I find that pretty easy: I think about how I would react in that situation (assuming analogous traits are flipped and considering their own personal history) and how that would affect me emotionally as well as in my personal life going forward. This is different: this is more about writing a character that just plain has a different set of moral standards or priorities that results in a different train of thought that is still logically coherent (at least from their perspective). Things like "characters with historical standards that nowadays are considered illogical" kind of thing.
Here's an example I ran into from my own writing. The setting I am writing has a caste system in which the supernatural world is run by an aristocratic cabal composed of "men of good breeding" who see everyone else as assistants and footsoldiers to their "noble cause". The system isn't explicitly hereditary and claims to be meritocratic but is heavily nepotistic, in that the people in charge tend to pick people like them both in mindset and background for leadership positions. Most people are marginalized in their own system and there is almost no social mobility.
The protagonist, who is a member of a lower-ranking caste and hates the aristocracy, ends up leading a band of quirky misfits to save the supernatural aristocrats from an assassination plot by their groomed successors (mostly because the would-be usurpers are worse). There's a scene at the end of the story where the protagonist is debriefed about what happened: the leadership admits they treated the protagonist unfairly, misjudged the loyalty of their successors, and that the protagonist had gone above and beyond the call of duty by saving them while upholding all the ideals of the supernatural world despite having no reason to. However it is also revealed that the protagonist's "reward" for doing this is merely "we're going to treat you a little nicer, like a person instead of a thing" and a pat on the back, the protagonist is still seen as a servant/footsoldier with no social standing and no chance for advancement (which sets up later plots).
Here's the problem: when I try to write the scene I keep tripping over the representative of the leadership accidentally realizing they're being a hypocrite via their own argument. Namely that it feels like if I were in the leadership's shoes, the logical thing to do would be to give the stereotypical line of "we will be watching your career with great interest" and look into fast-tracking the protagonist into something akin to an officer rank with a potential future in leadership, especially as this person has just proven themselves loyal and capable in the line of duty and the society has just lost it's groomed heirs. I.e., similar to what ancient Rome or similar societies did when they found hypercompetent commoners who excelled in the line of duty. The protagonist is the wrong gender, ethnicity, type of supernatural being, etc., but the society isn't explicitly bigoted, only implicitly so (i.e., the leadership think that only people of a certain background make good leaders), so it doesn't make sense that the leadership wouldn't bend the rules in the manpower crisis (aside from their egotism, and they have a lot of it).
I know that this was a very common attitude in the past. E.g., it used to be that the officer corps of armies drew from the aristocracy and the rank-and-file from the commoners, and never the two would meet, with common folk only being promoted to non-commissioned officer rank at most. Or that in some cultures the servant, no matter how hypercompetent and loyal, would always be seen as inferior to a traitorous heir. I also understand that people are really good at self-delusion. However, I have been unable to figure out the reasons why a character thinks this way so they can make the argument from their perspective.
However, trying to figure out how an individual with this mindset would think without noticing the hypocrisy of their own worldview just feels completely alien. The plot kind of needs this to happen and the hypocrisy and unfairness of the situation is kind of the point, but it's really hard to justify how the leaders don't learn from the experience and stick to their elitist mindset, given recent events had just proved them wrong and nearly got them assassinated. Specifically, I'm trying to figure out how the leader characters would be able to have a coherent stance on the situation so I can write their dialogue, i.e., how they justify their actions to themselves in a way that holds up to at least some scrutiny given their moral standards differ from the author.