The Problem with Referring to an Authority for an Answer is this...
June 24th 2008 23:31
The Problem with Referring to an Authority for an Answer is this...
This won’t take very long as it is not a very complicated subject to sort out.
In every disputation there comes a point where either an agreement is reached or the differences become irreconcilable. Agreeing to disagree is fine up until the point where the dispute is about an action rather than an esoteric ideal. People are free to believe that cannibalism is wonderful but the moment that they put it into action is when the ‘agreeing to disagree’ rule falls apart. Actions are what people oppose much more than words or concepts.
How are the actions of others controlled? If sit down chow on my next door neighbour his family may take action to prevent this from happening. Also the police may rock up and provide with a nice bed at the local lockup until a magistrate is available. The authority of the law comes to mess up my desire to freely express my desire for people to be tolerant of my cannibalism. Those bastards!
This is fine if the laws are good and designed to protect the safety of my neighbour but what if the laws are unjust or discriminatory. If the letter of the law can be followed in such a way that it becomes a point injustice. Do we still have an obligation to follow the authority of the law? The law says it is so and so we must obey its authority. Hardly, because laws change through acts of parliament and interpretation of the courts. In logical terms it is an appeal to the law as justification of the validity of an argument. Replace Law with any other authority and you will see how this argument breaks down. ‘Leges sine moribus vanae’ or as Horace puts it ‘the law without morals is in vain’.
‘A’ decides that a proposition is correct because authority ‘Z’ says so.
‘B’ disputes that authority ‘Z’ is the final authority on the matter and so the matter remains unresolved between them.
I say that cannibalism is ethically correct because a new law was passed to allow it. However my victim says that the law is not the final authority ethics and so my justification is shallow. (dura lex sed lex).
This goes on all the time when people justify any bad behaviour because ‘there is no law against it.’ It is an appeal to the authority of the law.
Appealing to other authorities go on all the time. Some people appeal to the authority of an author to justify their actions. ‘Well if it was justified by such a learned intellectual as my hero writer then it must be correct.’ Others appeal to the authority of international courts to justify a position. ‘If the courts in Hague have decided that this kind of sentence is just then it must be just because they are after all an international court.’ Others appeal to the Authority of the majority (vox populi) as being infallible. ‘If the rest of the lynch mob agrees then it must be right.’ Then we have international treaties that are signed by heads of government sometime without any consultation with the people. ‘Who died and made them king of the world?’
All appeals to authority break down if no one is willing to accept that the authority quoted is the final word on the matter. First you need to have an agreement that the authority is correct before you accept its word as infallible. Second (and more importantly) if the authority quoted has no power to enforce or influence behaviour then it is irrelevant to any dispute. Finally we are left with nothing more the argument that my authority figure is better than your authority figure.
Editorial Comment:
Anon: You say this Damo, but you are now putting yourself up as an authority figure.
Response: If I had any real authority do think I would waste my time writing this? Duh. Also I am too busy avoiding my cannibal neighbour now that cannibalism is legal.
Just ask your Prophet what is correct.
This won’t take very long as it is not a very complicated subject to sort out.
In every disputation there comes a point where either an agreement is reached or the differences become irreconcilable. Agreeing to disagree is fine up until the point where the dispute is about an action rather than an esoteric ideal. People are free to believe that cannibalism is wonderful but the moment that they put it into action is when the ‘agreeing to disagree’ rule falls apart. Actions are what people oppose much more than words or concepts.
How are the actions of others controlled? If sit down chow on my next door neighbour his family may take action to prevent this from happening. Also the police may rock up and provide with a nice bed at the local lockup until a magistrate is available. The authority of the law comes to mess up my desire to freely express my desire for people to be tolerant of my cannibalism. Those bastards!
This is fine if the laws are good and designed to protect the safety of my neighbour but what if the laws are unjust or discriminatory. If the letter of the law can be followed in such a way that it becomes a point injustice. Do we still have an obligation to follow the authority of the law? The law says it is so and so we must obey its authority. Hardly, because laws change through acts of parliament and interpretation of the courts. In logical terms it is an appeal to the law as justification of the validity of an argument. Replace Law with any other authority and you will see how this argument breaks down. ‘Leges sine moribus vanae’ or as Horace puts it ‘the law without morals is in vain’.
‘A’ decides that a proposition is correct because authority ‘Z’ says so.
‘B’ disputes that authority ‘Z’ is the final authority on the matter and so the matter remains unresolved between them.
I say that cannibalism is ethically correct because a new law was passed to allow it. However my victim says that the law is not the final authority ethics and so my justification is shallow. (dura lex sed lex).
This goes on all the time when people justify any bad behaviour because ‘there is no law against it.’ It is an appeal to the authority of the law.
Appealing to other authorities go on all the time. Some people appeal to the authority of an author to justify their actions. ‘Well if it was justified by such a learned intellectual as my hero writer then it must be correct.’ Others appeal to the authority of international courts to justify a position. ‘If the courts in Hague have decided that this kind of sentence is just then it must be just because they are after all an international court.’ Others appeal to the Authority of the majority (vox populi) as being infallible. ‘If the rest of the lynch mob agrees then it must be right.’ Then we have international treaties that are signed by heads of government sometime without any consultation with the people. ‘Who died and made them king of the world?’
All appeals to authority break down if no one is willing to accept that the authority quoted is the final word on the matter. First you need to have an agreement that the authority is correct before you accept its word as infallible. Second (and more importantly) if the authority quoted has no power to enforce or influence behaviour then it is irrelevant to any dispute. Finally we are left with nothing more the argument that my authority figure is better than your authority figure.
Editorial Comment:
Anon: You say this Damo, but you are now putting yourself up as an authority figure.
Response: If I had any real authority do think I would waste my time writing this? Duh. Also I am too busy avoiding my cannibal neighbour now that cannibalism is legal.
| 82 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
If there is a pot to stir I am happy to stir it.
Maybe it will provoke a little thought above the normal rhetoric of web.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I think it is too for you. You are by default an authority figure to someone in the world.
Have kids and the problem increases.
After they turn 12 you lose it all again.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Can I quote authoritatively on that?
Besides you never know what you can do with the power when you have it.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Now wait a minute Damo--I thought you were God. That would make you an authority, wouldn't it??!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
The problem is you missed the post where I realized that I am not God.
It was hard realization,but I can live with it.