Arguably it's an assertion of a system of (imposed) ethics, so it's a meta-ethical argument, which is certainly philosophy. As you say, it's sociology and politics at the same time. I don't think philosophy need necessarily be purely theoretical.
Edit: in your example, surely the sooner this hypothetical snob is knocked down a peg or two and made to realise he's no better than anyone else, this will ironically make him a better person (more pleasant to be around, at any rate) and will presumably improve his chances of being a functional member of society rather than an unbearable twat - which is good for him, in the long run, and good for people he interacts with. Likewise, if a young kid who's starting to act up is shown a bit of discipline*, he'll adjust his behaviour accordingly and grow up with a sense of social responsibility, which again is better for him and for society in general. It's a win-win situation. Perhaps if we assume people have a moral choice, whether you think that's fundamentally the case or not, they are much more likely to act in a 'moral' way than if we just throw up our hands and say there's no point in rewarding or punishing anyone, 'as they were obviously going to do it anyway'. I know I work harder when there's some kind of reward involved (who doesn't?), and if I were ever tempted to do something severely illegal, I'd have to want really badly to do it to overcome fear of the the legal consequences.
*I just mean made to realise that there are boundaries to socially acceptable behaviour, before the word 'discipline' puts anyone in mind of public flogging...
