Do You Believe in (Political) Authority?

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Let's start by getting a clear definition of authority: person A is in a position of authority over position B (in a certain area) if person B is under a moral obligation to follow the commands of person A (in that area).

For example, the pope has authority over Catholics in the area of faith and morals because Catholics have a moral obligation to follow the pope's word in those areas.

Political authority is simply authority possessed by a public official over (some class of) citizens.

We should be careful to distinguish authority from power and persuasiveness. Here by power I mean the ability to force your will upon others, regardless of what the others might think about it. This is distinct from authority. For example a crazed gunman might have a great deal of power over his hostage, since if the hostage disobeys the gunman will shoot him, but we can hopefully agree that the hostage isn't morally obligated to obey the gunman. Thus in that example the gunman has power over the hostage, but not authority.

By persuasiveness I mean the ability to convince others that a course of action is the best one. Again, this is distinct from authority. For example, consider a King who is convinced by the argument of a commoner to enact some policy. Now it seems clear that the commoner doesn't have authority over the King, but he was still able to persuade him. So he had persuasiveness but not authority.

An example of authority by itself is this: suppose that two brothers are engaged in a long feud. They receive word that their father is dying of a debilitating disease and they go to see him. Shortly before he dies, the father tells the brothers to end their feud out of respect for him. Now the father has no power over the sons to enforce this order; he's too weak to get out of bed when he makes the order and after he's dead he won't be able to affect anything. And the brothers aren't convinced by the father's order, they think that they have good reasons for their feud and so would be inclined to continue it. Nevertheless they are morally obligated to listen to the word of their father. Thus the father has authority over them, but neither power over them nor the ability to persuade them. So these things are distinct.

Hopefully then it is clear what I mean by "authority."

With this definition, would you say that (any) political officials have any authority? That is to say, is it ever the case that we are morally obligated to follow the command of political official, even if we can get away with not following it and if we do not agree with the command?

Keep in mind too that it is perfectly possible that some or many political officials lack authority. What I want to know is if you believe that there is even a single political official who possesses authority.
 

tstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2017
667
592
Maryland
✟45,260.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Celibate
I would say so based on Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except of God, and the ones that exist have been instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority, sets himself against what God has instituted, and those who set themselves against it will bring judgment on themselves. (REV)​
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let's start by getting a clear definition of authority: person A is in a position of authority over position B (in a certain area) if person B is under a moral obligation to follow the commands of person A (in that area).

For example, the pope has authority over Catholics in the area of faith and morals because Catholics have a moral obligation to follow the pope's word in those areas.

Political authority is simply authority possessed by a public official over (some class of) citizens.

We should be careful to distinguish authority from power and persuasiveness. Here by power I mean the ability to force your will upon others, regardless of what the others might think about it. This is distinct from authority. For example a crazed gunman might have a great deal of power over his hostage, since if the hostage disobeys the gunman will shoot him, but we can hopefully agree that the hostage isn't morally obligated to obey the gunman. Thus in that example the gunman has power over the hostage, but not authority.

By persuasiveness I mean the ability to convince others that a course of action is the best one. Again, this is distinct from authority. For example, consider a King who is convinced by the argument of a commoner to enact some policy. Now it seems clear that the commoner doesn't have authority over the King, but he was still able to persuade him. So he had persuasiveness but not authority.

An example of authority by itself is this: suppose that two brothers are engaged in a long feud. They receive word that their father is dying of a debilitating disease and they go to see him. Shortly before he dies, the father tells the brothers to end their feud out of respect for him. Now the father has no power over the sons to enforce this order; he's too weak to get out of bed when he makes the order and after he's dead he won't be able to affect anything. And the brothers aren't convinced by the father's order, they think that they have good reasons for their feud and so would be inclined to continue it. Nevertheless they are morally obligated to listen to the word of their father. Thus the father has authority over them, but neither power over them nor the ability to persuade them. So these things are distinct.

Hopefully then it is clear what I mean by "authority."

With this definition, would you say that (any) political officials have any authority? That is to say, is it ever the case that we are morally obligated to follow the command of political official, even if we can get away with not following it and if we do not agree with the command?

Keep in mind too that it is perfectly possible that some or many political officials lack authority. What I want to know is if you believe that there is even a single political official who possesses authority.

Let me say first of all that I appreciate the thoughtfulness and carefulness of your definition of terms.

I would say in view of your definitions, obedience has become a moral obligation if--without coercion or persuasion--Person B has voluntarily accepted that obedience per se to Person A is a "right action."

However, we have to be sure where Person B is actually placing his obligation.

For instance, would American soldiers stationed in an allied foreign country have a moral obligation of obedience to the political leaders of the host country? Let's say, "No, they don't" because that would involve conflict with their moral commitment to their home country, and it's for the purposes of their home country that they are stationed away from it.

But what if their American commander ordered them, "Obey their laws, honor their officials, pay the taxes they levy upon you?"

In that case, the moral obligation is still to their own commander, and to obey the laws of the host nation is really obedience to their own commander, not to that nation's officials.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would say so based on Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except of God, and the ones that exist have been instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority, sets himself against what God has instituted, and those who set themselves against it will bring judgment on themselves. (REV)​

I would say not. Our moral obligation is to the Lord, who has said to the Church while we are assigned as ambassadors of Heaven in the world, "Obey their laws, honor their officials, pay their taxes."

We obey, honor, and pay only because our own king has commanded it, but our moral obligation is to our own king.

This was exactly the situation I was in as military assigned overseas. In accordance with the usual Status of Forces Agreement, all of us military were commanded exactly the same thing as Romans 13: Obey their laws, honor their officials, pay taxes that are levied upon you.

We fully understood that our obligation of obedience was to our commander, not to the officials of those nations.

When I was in the Philippines in the latter 80s, we were plagued by the Philippine Constabulary setting up ad hoc roadblocks for American troops, stopping us and shaking us down for cash on contrived charges.

We complained up our chain of command, but the firm orders were: Honor the roadblocks, pay whatever fine they demanded, or face military disciplinary action.

When we got a new commanding general, he appeared on his first day for an interview on the American military television station AFRTS. The interviewer hit him with the question of the PC roadblocks and the command of the previous general to always honor the roadblocks.

The new general said: "Follow your own judgment."

The next day in the squadron, we senior NCOs were discussing that comment, because to the young troops coming up to a PC roadblock, "follow your own judgment" would inevitably translate to "hit the gas."

Our own squadron commander happened past, and we called him into our discussion.

"Colonel, did you see the general on television last night?"
"Yup, sure did."
"When he was asked about the PC roadblocks, he said 'follow your own judgment.'"
"Yup, sure did."
"Well, 'follow your own judgment' means 'balls to the wall' to the young troops. What did the general really mean to say?"
He cocked his head and said, "I don't know about you, but I'm keeping my car in tune."

In other words, just like that, the "honor their officials" obligation vanished...based on the command of our own commander.
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Let me say first of all that I appreciate the thoughtfulness and carefulness of your definition of terms.

I would say in view of your definitions, obedience has become a moral obligation if--without coercion or persuasion--Person B has voluntarily accepted that obedience per se to Person A is a "right action."

However, we have to be sure where Person B is actually placing his obligation.

For instance, would American soldiers stationed in an allied foreign country have a moral obligation of obedience to the political leaders of the host country? Let's say, "No, they don't" because that would involve conflict with their moral commitment to their home country, and it's for the purposes of their home country that they are stationed away from it.

But what if their American commander ordered them, "Obey their laws, honor their officials, pay the taxes they levy upon you?"

In that case, the moral obligation is still to their own commander, and to obey the laws of the host nation is really obedience to their own commander, not to that nation's officials.

Keep in mind that I'm only asking whether any political official has any authority of any type over any person. It's a pretty broad question. In particular, I'm not asking something like "is everyone living in a nation under the authority of all of its public officials?" I'm not even asking "is there a public official, in some nation, who has authority over all the citizens of his nation?" Usually authority is restricted both in who is placed under it as well as in what things can be demanded through the use of authority.

For example, it could be said that a teacher has authority over his students in terms of making demands of their time in class attendance and studying, as well as making demands that they behave in a respectful manner in class. But generally speaking a teacher wouldn't have authority over whether a student ate dessert with supper. The teacher's authority extends to things related to the classroom only.

Keeping in mind that the question is rather broad, it looks like you've answered affirmatively. That is, at the very least a soldier is under the authority of his commander (and presumably the chain of command/authority leads to the commander-in-chief who is definitely a public official).

The reason that I'm asking the question is that I'm finding in many political discussions that it seems as though many people don't believe in political authority. They may call things authority or talk about obedience to authority, but often this will boil down to "you should obey the law so you don't get thrown in jail" or "the laws make sense so they should be followed," i.e. to a statement that "officials have power over me, so I obey them" or "officials have convinced me that their orders are good, so I obey them." This makes many political discussions extremely difficult.

I'm just posting this thread out of curiosity of how widespread the notion of "there is no political authority" is. Nothing more than that.

Of course if it does turn into a deeper discussion of the nature of political authority I wouldn't mind that.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Keeping in mind that the question is rather broad, it looks like you've answered affirmatively. That is, at the very least a soldier is under the authority of his commander (and presumably the chain of command/authority leads to the commander-in-chief who is definitely a public official).

But remember--and I'm speaking as a member of the all-volunteer American military--soldiers have voluntarily accepted military command and have thus taken on the moral obligation by their own volition.

That is the only way it can be said that an official has moral authority under the definitions and examples you've set forth...when that authority has been freely taken up by the other person.

The reason that I'm asking the question is that I'm finding in many political discussions that it seems as though many people don't believe in political authority. They may call things authority or talk about obedience to authority, but often this will boil down to "you should obey the law so you don't get thrown in jail" or "the laws make sense so they should be followed," i.e. to a statement that "officials have power over me, so I obey them" or "officials have convinced me that their orders are good, so I obey them." This makes many political discussions extremely difficult.

All political authority stems, ultimately, from the barrel of a gun. The king always retains the option of force when persuasion doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But remember--and I'm speaking as a member of the all-volunteer American military--soldiers have voluntarily accepted military command and have thus taken on the moral obligation by their own volition.

That is the only way it can be said that an official has moral authority under the definitions and examples you've set forth...when that authority has been freely taken up by the other person.

I don't see how such a situation is in conflict with authority.

Marriages are entered into voluntarily (indeed it is the long Christian tradition that forced marriages are not actually marriages at all), but the husband still has authority over the wife.

All political authority stems, ultimately, from the barrel of a gun. The king always retains the option of force when persuasion doesn't work.

This seems in conflict with your previous example of authority in the military. Suppose that a soldier knows that he can get away with disobeying his commander's orders without being discovered, and so without being punished. Is he then under any obligation to follow his commander's orders anyway?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how such a situation is in conflict with authority.

Marriages are entered into voluntarily (indeed it is the long Christian tradition that forced marriages are not actually marriages at all), but the husband still has authority over the wife.

What makes the husband's authority moral is that the wife has made a free-will vow to that effect.

This seems in conflict with your previous example of authority in the military. Suppose that a soldier knows that he can get away with disobeying his commander's orders without being discovered, and so without being punished. Is he then under any obligation to follow his commander's orders anyway?

The soldier has made a free-will vow to be obedient, thus he has given moral authority to the commander and his obedience becomes a moral obligation.
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
What makes the husband's authority moral is that the wife has made a free-will vow to that effect.



The soldier has made a free-will vow to be obedient, thus he has given moral authority to the commander and his obedience becomes a moral obligation.

Your position seems to be "a person has an obligation to be obedient to another (and thus is under authority to another), if he pledged his obedience in a free-will vow, but is otherwise not obligated to be obedient to anyone." Please correct me if I am mistaken.

But if that is your view, what is your view on who Christ has authority over? I would say that He has authority over everyone, but it's clear that many people have not pledged free-will vows to obey Him.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your position seems to be "a person has an obligation to be obedient to another (and thus is under authority to another), if he pledged his obedience in a free-will vow, but is otherwise not obligated to be obedient to anyone." Please correct me if I am mistaken.

But if that is your view, what is your view on who Christ has authority over? I would say that He has authority over everyone, but it's clear that many people have not pledged free-will vows to obey Him.

You created the definitions for discussion. You excluded force and persuasion as creators of moral obligation to political authority--and you stipulated political authority.

What else does that leave other than a person freely accepting a moral obligation of obedience?

If you believe political authority is somehow inherent by some other means, then you should point out what that other means might be.

With regard to Christ's authority, I would say that in this current age, Christ does not exert authority through power or persuasion over anyone, but that people are able to obligate themselves to obedience to Him ("accept Jesus as Lord and savior"...especially the "Lord" part).

It appears that Christ will exert His authority on everyone else by force in a future age...but that's not now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You created the definitions for discussion. You excluded force and persuasion as creators of moral obligation to political authority--and you stipulated political authority.

What else does that leave other than a person freely accepting a moral obligation of obedience?

If you believe political authority is somehow inherent by some other means, then you should point out what that other means might be.

With regard to Christ's authority, I would say that in this current age, Christ does not exert authority through power or persuasion over anyone, but that people are able to obligate themselves to obedience to Him ("accept Jesus as Lord and savior"...especially the "Lord" part).

It appears that Christ will exert His authority on everyone else by force in a future age...but that's not now.

You seem to be operating under a trilemma in terms of authority. That is you seem to be operating under the assumption that if someone can get someone to do something then either:
  • He has coerced the other to do so by force or the threats of force (what I have termed "power").
  • He has convinced the other to do so by intellectual or rhetorical argument (what I have termed "persuasion").
  • Or the other person has previously entered into a free-will obligation to obey.
Since I have defined the first two not to be authority, authority then becomes synonymous with the third. Even in the case of God you analyze the situation with this framework.

But I don't think we are on the same page on what authority is. This example might help clear up the distinction: the tribes of Israel were under the authority of the old law, that is, they were morally obligated to follow it. But the law itself had no ability to force them to follow it, and indeed we know that they often did not follow it. Even so, they were under its authority.

That is to say, authority is not dependent on an ability to cause someone to do something.

I can see this difference in understanding in your statement that Christ only has authority in the current age over people who obligate themselves to obedience to Him. To me this looks like an odd statement: I would say that everyone generally is under Christ's authority, but in many cases people simply do not recognize that authority. To say that this lack of recognition implies that the authority itself does not exist seems bizarre to me. I think that the misconception is coming about because you are analyzing "authority" as if it were another variant of force and the power to coerce (perhaps a "kinder" variant), despite the fact that I distinguished these things.

Now in terms of your question about where authority may come from, I do not claim to have a comprehensive theory of authority. However, I do recognize that there are situations in which an authority exists but where the authority has no power to coerce, no ability to persuade, and which no oath of obedience has been given. The most common example of this would be the authority that parents have over their children. It is true that much of the time parents can coerce their children, if they really want to, and they can sometimes (but not always and quite infrequently at bedtime) persuade them, but even when these things are absent they still have authority over their children. So while I cannot give a complete account of what creates authority, I can at least recognize when proposed accounts are incomplete.
 
Upvote 0