- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- 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.
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.