CommieBastard
2nd July 2004, 22:28
In the world there has long been attempts at justification for the authority wielded by some over others. In the much more deeply religious world of the past, it was common for authority to be justified by appeal to some divine being. e.g. the divine right of kings or the papal authority. In this post religious society we find that those seeking to wield authority often struggle to find a means to justify it. Many who have sought justification have used political ideologies in a near religious manner, seeking to use political ideas as dogma, instead of as the rational arguments and concepts that they are. This can be seen in the russian revolution, and in the 'democracy' of the USA. An alternative circular logic which is often used as a justification for mindless authority tends to run something along these lines:
1. You should do what you're told.
2. Because the person telling you has authority.
3. Because they say they do.
4. Which is true because of their authority
5. Which they have because they say they do.
6. see 4.
7. see 5.
and so on, ad infinitum
Essentially, authority only stands up as and when people beleive in it, and so it is wholly dependant on it's ability to convince people of it's validity. In the instances above it can be seen that anyone exercising their rational abilities would not normally be convinced. This being exactly why such authority is also dependant on the continued ignorance, or lack of exercising of rational thought, of those it wishes to subject. The means by which this is done is normally a harsh conditioning against the use of rational thought. If one engages a beleiver in such kinds of authority in rational discussion it is usual to find that they react angrily and violently, refusing to engage in discussion on the subject. Often they hold the beleif that the very questioning of such authority is somehow morally wrong.
It might be said, however, that there are other justifications for authority, some even, that can never be avoided. We might take the example of a fireman coming to a person's aid in a burning building, when he tells someone to do something, we might think them insane if they questioned his authority to give them orders at length. However, I would argue that in this instance the fireman is not wielding authority, but rather in words structured like an order there is a subtle communication also occuring. It is apparent that the fireman is a professional with expertise in fire safety, and this is something we will register and acknowledge in seeing him. When we hear his commands, such as 'stand there' we might interpret them as a shortened version of 'i am an expert in fire safety, and to my knowledge it is safest for you if you stand there'. The first part of the communication is given by his uniform. We can see this is the case, as if he was not in uniform, we might expect him to actually state his area of expertise before complying. What is more, he is simply informing, as a person who does not wish to survive a fire (for whatever reasons) would possibly not comply. Furthermore, if the person has an interest in something they value more than their current chances of survival (the survival of a still trapped love one for example) they might disobey the fireman anyway. Additionally, were a person to know that they themselves due to some particular experience have a greater knowledge of fire safety than the average fireman, they may refuse to comply anyway, if their knowledge contradicts the firemans information. In short, I simply cannot see a justification for authority, as it must in it's very nature go without being questioned, and something that is not questioned has more than a tendency to be irrational, in fact we can see that an irrational concept must have a lack of questioning as a precursor to its continued existence.
So where then might organisation fit into a world where authority is removed? I would say in the respect of particular person's expertise, not unquestioned, not blindly followed, but taken as reasonable and plausible advice where we recognise the failings of our own expertise. It seems to me that there is no reason that a world without authority would slip into the floundering chaos that it is commonly assumed it would. If anything, I would say we could expect less chaos.
It is asked 'in such a society, who would prevent crimes?'. I would ask, in our society, who is there to prevent crimes? Crimes occur every day, and apparently in increasing numbers, there is little that can be done to prevent them, as we cannot predict the future. That which is done seems to amount to little more than commiting acts against offenders that in normal circumstances would themselves be considered criminal.
Thanks to MiniOswald for helping shape my arguments in discussion of this subject.
1. You should do what you're told.
2. Because the person telling you has authority.
3. Because they say they do.
4. Which is true because of their authority
5. Which they have because they say they do.
6. see 4.
7. see 5.
and so on, ad infinitum
Essentially, authority only stands up as and when people beleive in it, and so it is wholly dependant on it's ability to convince people of it's validity. In the instances above it can be seen that anyone exercising their rational abilities would not normally be convinced. This being exactly why such authority is also dependant on the continued ignorance, or lack of exercising of rational thought, of those it wishes to subject. The means by which this is done is normally a harsh conditioning against the use of rational thought. If one engages a beleiver in such kinds of authority in rational discussion it is usual to find that they react angrily and violently, refusing to engage in discussion on the subject. Often they hold the beleif that the very questioning of such authority is somehow morally wrong.
It might be said, however, that there are other justifications for authority, some even, that can never be avoided. We might take the example of a fireman coming to a person's aid in a burning building, when he tells someone to do something, we might think them insane if they questioned his authority to give them orders at length. However, I would argue that in this instance the fireman is not wielding authority, but rather in words structured like an order there is a subtle communication also occuring. It is apparent that the fireman is a professional with expertise in fire safety, and this is something we will register and acknowledge in seeing him. When we hear his commands, such as 'stand there' we might interpret them as a shortened version of 'i am an expert in fire safety, and to my knowledge it is safest for you if you stand there'. The first part of the communication is given by his uniform. We can see this is the case, as if he was not in uniform, we might expect him to actually state his area of expertise before complying. What is more, he is simply informing, as a person who does not wish to survive a fire (for whatever reasons) would possibly not comply. Furthermore, if the person has an interest in something they value more than their current chances of survival (the survival of a still trapped love one for example) they might disobey the fireman anyway. Additionally, were a person to know that they themselves due to some particular experience have a greater knowledge of fire safety than the average fireman, they may refuse to comply anyway, if their knowledge contradicts the firemans information. In short, I simply cannot see a justification for authority, as it must in it's very nature go without being questioned, and something that is not questioned has more than a tendency to be irrational, in fact we can see that an irrational concept must have a lack of questioning as a precursor to its continued existence.
So where then might organisation fit into a world where authority is removed? I would say in the respect of particular person's expertise, not unquestioned, not blindly followed, but taken as reasonable and plausible advice where we recognise the failings of our own expertise. It seems to me that there is no reason that a world without authority would slip into the floundering chaos that it is commonly assumed it would. If anything, I would say we could expect less chaos.
It is asked 'in such a society, who would prevent crimes?'. I would ask, in our society, who is there to prevent crimes? Crimes occur every day, and apparently in increasing numbers, there is little that can be done to prevent them, as we cannot predict the future. That which is done seems to amount to little more than commiting acts against offenders that in normal circumstances would themselves be considered criminal.
Thanks to MiniOswald for helping shape my arguments in discussion of this subject.