Is it moral to accept things soley on the basis of Authority?

[Tinker Grey]

It's perfectly moral. Whether is it the best option is debatable, but it is certainly not immoral.

So "I was just doing what I told" is an acceptable defense?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Uh huh. And how many of them made it to the Promised Land?



if you keep her alive in the desert for 40 years, while constantly providing enough food and such, while also granting her special status and being a guide... well, maybe she'll just want to put out after that much time, eh?

So if someone treats you well and asks you to do something, you are absolved of evaluating the morality of their behest?

(And you overlooked the fact that the Israelites knew that their leaders were capable of mistakes.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

To answer your earlier question, it would not be ok to obey Joshua. The order to commit genocide violates every moral standard I have. Even WITH mana raining from heaven or other proof of supernatural action. All that would prove is that the supernatural being in question violates every moral standard I have and is not worthy of worship.

Good. Thanks.

So to paraphrase, we should evaluate an authority's request (command, etc.) on the basis of our own morality. Fair paraphrase?

What about authoritative statements about alleged facts, such as the soul? Should those be evaluated and how?

 

[allhart]

Everyone has a role in one form or another but in all honesty the Bible, in my life gives me the basis for what role authority's play out in my life! For God is sovereign over all things!

 

[b&wpac4]

So if someone treats you well and asks you to do something, you are absolved of evaluating the morality of their behest?

Ok, now we're overlooking the fact that I believe the being making the request is all powerful and all knowing and has just performed many great miracles to lead my people out of slavery. This being also gave my people a book of laws to keep, and we agreed to keep them, so we think the being has pretty good morality. I'm probably not going to spend too much time figuring out if it's moral to me since I have already entrusted my morality to the being's care anyway.

(And you overlooked the fact that the Israelites knew that their leaders were capable of mistakes.)

The entire trip they were being told that the land would be theirs. Someone has said something consistent to that plan.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Solely on the basis of authority? Only if it has been determined that the authority's authority is authorized to be authoritative by examining the foundations on which it claims authority.

How does one make that determination?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Moral or no, I don't think one has a choice. We're kind of stuck accepting authorities on many matters because we can't research everything anyone tells us. Further, we can't even research everything everyone tells us _that's relevant_! We don't have the time or the resources. So we use heuristics, and hopefully, we don't get led down a trail too often.

Good answer. It is important to note I think that on physical things, we can duplicate--at least in principle--every experiment that leads to some conclusion such as, say, that the sun is principally made of hydrogen. Secondly, if an authority in matters of the physical consistently fails to produce results, he or she will cease to be an authority.

It may be somewhat semantical in nature, but we could say that a person is not the authority but nature itself, or perhaps in another sense the authority is effectiveness.

Is there a similar measuring stick for the strictly metaphysical?

More to the question, I think the issue of morality is more on the part of the authority. The fact is, people are gullible. One encourages people not to be gullible, but I don't see it as a moral failing (unless they are deliberately gullible). The authority, on the other hand, has moral responsibility to the people who listen to him or her.

Would you not agree, however, that the degree to which a person is capable of evaluating a situation, they should do so?

 

[SithDoughnut]

So "I was just doing what I told" is an acceptable defense?

There is a difference between thinking something and actually doing it. I consider thoughts to be neither moral or immoral, really (I just usually say moral because it's the equivalent of saying that there's nothing wrong with them), but actions can be moral or immoral.

For example, I believe that thinking that black people are inferior is not immoral. However, actually discriminating against them based on that line of thinking is immoral.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ok, now we're overlooking the fact that I believe the being making the request is all powerful and all knowing and has just performed many great miracles to lead my people out of slavery. This being also gave my people a book of laws to keep, and we agreed to keep them, so we think the being has pretty good morality. I'm probably not going to spend too much time figuring out if it's moral to me since I have already entrusted my morality to the being's care anyway.

Actually, you are trusting Joshua that said being made the request.

To ask this another way, how much would it take for you to accept that your rabbi got similar instruction from YHWH.

The entire trip they were being told that the land would be theirs. Someone has said something consistent to that plan.

I find it hard to believe that you would accept that spitting babies on pikes would be an appropriate way of carrying out a plan.

I find it hard to believe that you would accept that taking what is someone else's would be okay if an authoritative figure alleged that it was God's plan.

But let's skip the hard stuff. Would it be a fair summary to say that for you, you would accept what an authority figure had to say if you believed that manna from heaven had resulted from following their authority?

Do you think that this sort of scenario could apply today?

 

[The Penitent Man]

If your pastor told you he had a message from God that you were to hang outside the local strip club and shoot the clientele, proprietor, and employess, is his authority sufficient? Why or why not?

My pastor's authority expires the moment he urges me to do anything unlawful or immoral. If I find myself being told by God that I must kill someone or several someones, that's a sure sign of delusion. And crazy people get all kinds of messages from God. You know the person is crazy when "God" commands them to do something unlawful, immoral or just really odd. Mental illness and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. A churchgoing person may have a mental illness that causes them to have delusions based on their religious beliefs.

 

[allhart]

Actually, you are trusting Joshua that said being made the request.

To ask this another way, how much would it take for you to accept that your rabbi got similar instruction from YHWH.



I find it hard to believe that you would accept that spitting babies on pikes would be an appropriate way of carrying out a plan.

I find it hard to believe that you would accept that taking what is someone else's would be okay if an authoritative figure alleged that it was God's plan.

But let's skip the hard stuff. Would it be a fair summary to say that for you, you would accept what an authority figure had to say if you believed that manna from heaven had resulted from following their authority?

Do you think that this sort of scenario could apply today?

Can dead people speak and can you differentiate inner strength over your body's power? You tend to acknowledge spirituality, but rationalize it away!

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is a difference between thinking something and actually doing it. I consider thoughts to be neither moral or immoral, really (I just usually say moral because it's the equivalent of saying that there's nothing wrong with them), but actions can be moral or immoral.

For example, I believe that thinking that black people are inferior is not immoral. However, actually discriminating against them based on that line of thinking is immoral.

I appreciate the distinction, I think. Such as, there is a difference between lusting and raping.

But, I think it gets muddy in your example. For example if we think something is true, are we not justified in acting on it? If then I think that some other race is inferior how could I be unjustified in taking actions that follow from that inferiority? Let's say it is something as mild as condescension.

Returning to authority, should I have evaluated the authority's statement that black are inferior before I accept this belief and act on it?

When am I absolved from doing so?

 

[Tinker Grey]

My pastor's authority expires the moment he urges me to do anything unlawful or immoral. If I find myself being told by God that I must kill someone or several someones, that's a sure sign of delusion. And crazy people get all kinds of messages from God. You know the person is crazy when "God" commands them to do something unlawful, immoral or just really odd. Mental illness and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. A churchgoing person may have a mental illness that causes them to have delusions based on their religious beliefs.

I am glad to hear you say so.

So to return to the last line in my OP: Aren't you then your own authority in making this evaluation?

 

[allhart]

I appreciate the distinction, I think. Such as, there is a difference between lusting and raping.

But, I think it gets muddy in your example. For example if we think something is true, are we not justified in acting on it? If then I think that some other race is inferior how could I be unjustified in taking actions that follow from that inferiority? Let's say it is something as mild as condescension.

Returning to authority, should I have evaluated the authority's statement that black are inferior before I accept this belief and act on it?

When am I absolved from doing so?

Laws of nature....Do you go up a twenty store building and drop a rock and say that it's conclusion by it's laws of gravity aren't conclusive enough for you to jump off? Faith is actuated tested, but the reality of it isn't subjective by your means to be objective in your intentions!! Idea and actions have consequences. The reality of it all still exists even if your in doubt!

 

[b&wpac4]

Actually, you are trusting Joshua that said being made the request.

To ask this another way, how much would it take for you to accept that your rabbi got similar instruction from YHWH.

This is a much better question. I have absolutely no belief that my rabbi gets instructions from God, so I would not follow those instructions. To put myself back in that time, I would have believed Moses got his instructions from God, since my parents would have been there at Sinai, and they would have told me to follow and trust Moses, who told us to follow Joshua. It's a completely different situation.

I find it hard to believe that you would accept that spitting babies on pikes would be an appropriate way of carrying out a plan.

I find it hard to believe that you would accept that taking what is someone else's would be okay if an authoritative figure alleged that it was God's plan.

But let's skip the hard stuff. Would it be a fair summary to say that for you, you would accept what an authority figure had to say if you believed that manna from heaven had resulted from following their authority?

Do you think that this sort of scenario could apply today?

No, I would not follow any of these things today. As I said before, it is a completely different situation.

 

[Willtor]

Good answer. It is important to note I think that on physical things, we can duplicate--at least in principle--every experiment that leads to some conclusion such as, say, that the sun is principally made of hydrogen. Secondly, if an authority in matters of the physical consistently fails to produce results, he or she will cease to be an authority.

Indeed. Insofar as we can trust a mechanism (e.g., as the peer-review process in science), we build some degree of certainty based on knowledge that a system is self-correcting.

It may be somewhat semantical in nature, but we could say that a person is not the authority but nature itself, or perhaps in another sense the authority is effectiveness.

Interesting. That seems more fitting in certain areas than others. More below...

Is there a similar measuring stick for the strictly metaphysical?

If there were, would you call it "metaphysics?" I believe some areas of life require existential leaps. Is it wrong to murder a person in cold blood? I can cite economic and social reasons as to why it is inefficient to do so, or to allow as much to be done. But I am not a proponent of making economics and sociology the basis for morality.

An example: My uncle studied law and economics and wrote a paper in which he argued that, totally apart from the American Civil War, slavery was dying out in the South for economic reasons. It was less cost-effective than hiring workers to do the same work. When he told my grandfather (an economist) that he had written a paper on the viability of slavery as an economic model, my grandfather responded: "I hope you found that it wasn't." I suspect he didn't say that because he had already researched the issue, himself. I think he said that because he was a good man. I.e., he would have continued to preach the evils of slavery (especially as practiced in America) even if it _were_ economically viable. Were someone using economics as a metric (my uncle wasn't), he would have been glad that economics came up with "the right answer."

I feel much the same way. I don't know that there's a clear way to measure some things. But one is forced into significant decisions. It was more to this point that I was actually referring to the morality of authorities (as opposed to the masses).

For clarification, I don't think, e.g., that Nazi footsoldiers who were "just following orders" should be absolved of wrongdoing by any means, but I think there is a reason for the Godwin's Law phenomenon: Hitler and the regime bore a much greater responsibility because they had the hearts and minds of the people.

Would you not agree, however, that the degree to which a person is capable of evaluating a situation, they should do so?

A resounding: absolutely! I couldn't be more on the same page.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This is a much better question. I have absolutely no belief that my rabbi gets instructions from God, so I would not follow those instructions. To put myself back in that time, I would have believed Moses got his instructions from God, since my parents would have been there at Sinai, and they would have told me to follow and trust Moses, who told us to follow Joshua. It's a completely different situation.



No, I would not follow any of these things today. As I said before, it is a completely different situation.

OK, then. I can accept that (sort of). The Joshua question originated when Chesterton asked about what sort of moral consequences did I mean. It was merely an example.

So to qualify. This distinction between now and then was the miracles that validated Moses' authority?

So would you be in agreement with a my slightly earlier post to Willtor that the effectiveness of science is its authority? That some sort of measure against reality is what validates authority?

 

[b&wpac4]

So to qualify. This distinction between now and then was the miracles that validated Moses' authority?

Sinai validated Moses' authority. Miracles prove nothing, as the Egyptians were able to replicate several of Moses' acts themselves, but Sinai is where the entire people heard God speak.

So would you be in agreement with a my slightly earlier post to Willtor that the effectiveness of science is its authority? That some sort of measure against reality is what validates authority?

Well, science backs itself up with researched evidence, so it builds a case for authority on a subject. To deny the evidence is sort of foolish unless you have evidence that challenges.

 

[allhart]

Who has the authority over life and is death subjective or objective? Who is the moral law giver of the laws in nature. For it isn't man..............?

 

[b&wpac4]

Who has the authority over life and is death subjective or objective? Who is the moral law giver of the laws in nature. For it isn't man..............?

Who are you addressing this question towards? Only theists would answer it the way you would like, atheists would not.