Forms of authority

[premjan]

parental - I'm your dad and you have to do what I say Love - I love you, and if you loved me back, you would do this for me. Moral - you should do this because it is the right thing to do Money - If you do this you will get paid handsomely Managerial - If you don't do this, I will fire your ass Governmental - We will draft your sorry ass. Ideological - Marx said so Religious - Allah wants you to Legal - We will send you to jail if you do this Existential Autonomy - It is my body and I get to say what happens to it Demographic - This is the will of the majority Proprietary - It is my property and I will do what I want with it Gun - Power froms the barrel of this Evidential - See how many things point to this being true Proof - Mathematically follows that Truth - It is the truth and you would be deceived if you didn't accept it

Discuss or add your own.

[Chris Porter]

Are you sure this shouldn't be Forms of Coercion?

[premjan]

Hmmm, I guess my examples made it into coercion rather than authority. I am interested in keeping it value neutral. Coercion is a form of authority I think.

[Chris Porter]

authority: power OR right to give orders, make change, enforce obedience

Parsing that gives power to give orders, make change, enforce obedience
OR
right to give orders, make change, enforce obedience

Is there one or the other you wanted to concentrate on, because to me it appears that power and right are not synonymous, but from your list, it looks like power, not right.

[premjan]

Ability I suppose. If you can make people do what you say, that means you are authoritative in some way.

[Chris Porter]

Hm... but couldn't it be that 'ability' is just another type of authority?

I have the ability to bake a cake would mean I have the authority to bake a cake (I have the right/power to bake a cake).

See, some of your list doesn't deal with other people, such as mathematics or evidential, so making it relational to people does seem to me to put a coercive spin on the exercise.

[Cheerful Charlie]

parental - I'm your dad and you have to do what I say
Love - I love you, and if you loved me back, you would do this for me.
Moral - you should do this because it is the right thing to do
Money - If you do this you will get paid handsomely
Managerial - If you don't do this, I will fire your ass
Governmental - We will draft your sorry ass.
Ideological - Marx said so
Religious - Allah wants you to
Legal - We will send you to jail if you do this
Existential Autonomy - It is my body and I get to say what happens to it
Demographic - This is the will of the majority
Proprietary - It is my property and I will do what I want with it
Gun - Power froms the barrel of this
Evidential - See how many things point to this being true
Proof - Mathematically follows that
Truth - It is the truth and you would be deceived if you didn't accept itDiscuss or add your own.


Peer pressure
Bandwagon effect, fad - everybody's doing it
Argument ad populum - everybody has always believed in gods
Milgram's obedience to authority effect
Fear - If I speak out I will be attacked. Assassinated


CC

[premjan]

You're right it is not terribly well defined the way I have put it. Thanks for participating anyway.

[kennethamy]

You're right it is not terribly well defined the way I have put it. Thanks for participating anyway.

Besides, the term "authority" has two meanings:

1. The right to control or coerce, as in, the authority of the police, or the authority of a superior officer/

2. "the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes", as in, the dictionary is an authority on spelling, or the chairman of my physics department is an authority on nuclear physics, but doesn't know much about philosophy.

I expect you are thinking of the first meaning, not the second meaning.

[premjan]

I was trying to bridge the two meanings - perhaps in the expectation that one single word ought to have really one meaning with two aspects to it. I suppose that is a false expectation, really and my thread more of a deconstructionist rebellion against language, without even realizing it.

[Alethias]

A police officer has the power to falsely arrest me, but if he does that type of thing very much, he himself will go to jail for abusing his power. So his authority is limited.

A world expert on something might be an authority on the subject, and any pronouncements they make should be taken seriously, but since even such a person can make mistakes their pronouncements are still subject to testing. That type of authority is therefore limited.

Religious authority exerts much influence over peoples lives. It is the use of an unproven diety to exert control over individual moral choices. I think some people are uncomfortable with atheism because they find the lack of ability to control or influence your moral choices very scary. The truth is that they never had the control in the first place; religious people make just as many bad moral choices as non-religious people.

[kennethamy]

A police officer has the power to falsely arrest me, but if he does that type of thing very much, he himself will go to jail for abusing his power. So his authority is limited.

A world expert on something might be an authority on the subject, and any pronouncements they make should be taken seriously, but since even such a person can make mistakes their pronouncements are still subject to testing. That type of authority is therefore limited.

Religious authority exerts much influence over peoples lives. It is the use of an unproven diety to exert control over individual moral choices. I think some people are uncomfortable with atheism because they find the lack of ability to control or influence your moral choices very scary. The truth is that they never had the control in the first place; religious people make just as many bad moral choices as non-religious people.

I don't think that anyone thought that any authority was not limited. Although it is unlikely that the dictionary will be mistaken about how to spell a word. Still, what is meant by "authority" when we talk about a police officer's authority, and when we talk about the authority of a world expert on some subject matter, is quite different. I did not know there were any religious authorities since the Inquisition, although there are, of course, authorities on religion (anthropologists and the like) or historians of religion.

[premjan]

Religion itself is a form of authority. In fact that may one reason that makes people turn to it - it allows you to tell people authoritatively what they ought and ought not to do.

[aguy2]

parental - I'm your dad and you have to do what I say Love - I love you, and if you loved me back, you would do this for me. Moral - you should do this because it is the right thing to do Money - If you do this you will get paid handsomely Managerial - If you don't do this, I will fire your ass Governmental - We will draft your sorry ass. Ideological - Marx said so Religious - Allah wants you to Legal - We will send you to jail if you do this Existential Autonomy - It is my body and I get to say what happens to it Demographic - This is the will of the majority Proprietary - It is my property and I will do what I want with it Gun - Power froms the barrel of this Evidential - See how many things point to this being true Proof - Mathematically follows that Truth - It is the truth and you would be deceived if you didn't accept it

Discuss or add your own.

Do you mean to say that the myth of absolute free will, is just a myth?
aguy2(amen)

[aguy2]

I don't think that anyone thought that any authority was not limited. Although it is unlikely that the dictionary will be mistaken about how to spell a word.

What is this! Do my eyes decieve me, or does the above make some actual sense?
aguy2(amen)

[premjan]

Well, free will is the start of all authority, but then some people start to use it to modify the free will of others (IMO).

[aguy2]

Well, free will is the start of all authority, but then some people start to use it to modify the free will of others (IMO).

I am going to have put some thought in on this. Thanks.
aguy2(amen)

[kennethamy]

What is this! Do my eyes decieve me, or does the above make some actual sense?
aguy2(amen)

"Deceive"

[kennethamy]

Well, free will is the start of all authority, but then some people start to use it to modify the free will of others (IMO).

Not the authority of the dictionary for correct spelling, is it? But why is free will the start of all authority, say the authority of the police?

[premjan]

Well, without authority over our own bodies (which I presume arises from free will or possibly existence), how else could we impose authority on others? Or could we? If we have will then I presume we can impose authority. Not the kind which the dictionary has though. That kind could be possessed by something that has no will.

[kennethamy]

Religion itself is a form of authority. In fact that may one reason that makes people turn to it - it allows you to tell people authoritatively what they ought and ought not to do.

Here again, I think we are meeting up with the ambiguity of the term, "authority".

Do you mean that certain religious people are authorities on morality; that they are experts on right and wrong? Or do you mean that some people have been given power by religious institutions to force people to conform to certain moral views?

[premjan]

Religious people probably think they are experts on right and wrong. So in their own mind they are authorities. Whereas to someone who doesn't believe in their religion, they are not authoritative in the dictionary sense at all, but they may well try to use their supposed authoritative knowledge of right and wrong to impose a different kind of authority on people - e.g. religious punishment.

[kennethamy]

Religious people probably think they are experts on right and wrong. So in their own mind they are authorities. Whereas to someone who doesn't believe in their religion, they are not authoritative in the dictionary sense at all, but they may well try to use their supposed authoritative knowledge of right and wrong to impose a different kind of authority on people - e.g. religious punishment.

Yes, they may think they are authorities. But that doesn't mean they are. Nor does it mean that there are such things as moral authorities.

[premjan]

Of course there not being moral authorities does not prevent people from behaving as if there are moral (or religious or ideological etc.) authorities.

[kennethamy]

Of course there not being moral authorities does not prevent people from behaving as if there are moral (or religious or ideological etc.) authorities.

No, it doesn't.

[kennethamy]

Well, without authority over our own bodies (which I presume arises from free will or possibly existence), how else could we impose authority on others? Or could we? If we have will then I presume we can impose authority. Not the kind which the dictionary has though. That kind could be possessed by something that has no will.

But does the fact (and it isn't always one) that we have "power" over our bodies mean that is the start of coercive authority? It might be a necessary condition, but why the "start"? But maybe I don't know what you mean by that.

[premjan]

Well, where does power start? It has to start somewhere. I presume that it starts with "us" having power over ourselves and then proceeding to gain power over others, if that is what we are into.

[Chris Porter]

Well, without authority over our own bodies (which I presume arises from free will or possibly existence), how else could we impose authority on others? Or could we? If we have will then I presume we can impose authority. Not the kind which the dictionary has though. That kind could be possessed by something that has no will.

We certainly don't have full authority over our bodies, either physically or by law. Physical-think of those with Tourette's syndrome: not in full "authority" of their words or actions. By law-laws against aborting humans gives government authority over that of a pregnant woman.

[Cacofonix]

Some say that a desire to impose authority on others arises in part on occasion from a desire to control ourselves. This of course can be convoluted by the introjection of our own struggles with our parents etc. In such circumstances the transcendance of all these scenarios is the realisation of a desire for temporary solitude to work it out.

However, it so arises that we are placed in situations where we are required to be an authority and there is no responsible opt out. In such situations we find the best strategies we can to muddle through - eg newly qualified teachers - although input from others can be of vital help.

In such circumstances psychological advantage predominates though various forms of coercion remain the backlog.

One could say the minima are wars and the maxima are in empathic cooperation.

[kennethamy]

Well, where does power start? It has to start somewhere. I presume that it starts with "us" having power over ourselves and then proceeding to gain power over others, if that is what we are into.

Power to do what? The policeman's power to arrest someone starts with his having been given the authority to do so. It has nothing to do with his body or his control over it. Unless he had the authority, he would not have that power.

[premjan]

I was trying to account for the will to power. But I think it is hard to move beyond speculation.

[kennethamy]

I was trying to account for the will to power. But I think it is hard to move beyond speculation.

If you mean why some people desire power, and some do not, (while there are most of us in between) that seems to be an empirical question for experimental psychologists. There have been studies on that, by, I think his name was Stanley Milken, on punishment and control.

[premjan]

Doesn't everyone desire power to some degree though less in some cases? At least most people have personal boundaries indicating a certain territorialism.

[kennethamy]

Doesn't everyone desire power to some degree though less in some cases? At least most people have personal boundaries indicating a certain territorialism.

If this is a psychological-social question, I guess we would require some "operational definition" of "power". "Power to some degree" covers a lot of territory. It is not, I would guess, something for philosophical speculation. I think it would have to be an empirical question for experimental psychologists.

[premjan]

Hm

[kennethamy]

Hm

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html

[premjan]

Where the "teacher" had to physically place the "learner's" hand on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer the maximum voltage dropped to 30.0% and where the "experimenter" was at end of a phone line rather than being in the same room the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer 450 volts dropped to 20.5% and where the "teacher" could himself nominate the shock level the percentage of subjects who were prepared to continue to the end of the scale dropped to 2.5%
That's a very interesting experiment - and it corresponds to my intuition. The more the person is involved in decision-making the more they are likely to question the authority. The more anonymous the decision and the greater the physical presence of the authority figure, the more effective the authority. So authority is composed of many little cues each contributing to our tendency to obey. I suppose the tendency of dogs to obey their masters may be similarly composed. At least dogs are very obedient generally. But there are some things they may not tolerate, such as someone approaching close when they are eating (for some dogs). And they have a need to conform to authority, and if owned by a family, they tend to grade the members by their degree of authority (anecdotally from my experience).

[kennethamy]

That's a very interesting experiment - and it corresponds to my intuition. The more the person is involved in decision-making the more they are likely to question the authority. The more anonymous the decision and the greater the physical presence of the authority figure, the more effective the authority. So authority is composed of many little cues each contributing to our tendency to obey. I suppose the tendency of dogs to obey their masters may be similarly composed. At least dogs are very obedient generally. But there are some things they may not tolerate, such as someone approaching close when they are eating (for some dogs). And they have a need to conform to authority, and if owned by a family, they tend to grade the members by their degree of authority (anecdotally from my experience).

The Vatican tells us that our belief that a miracle occurs without the support of evidence and theory is of no value.* The same may be said about our intuitions. I think that science should be left to scientists, and philosophy to philosophers. But, it is gratifying when science confirms intuition, I agree.

*Miracula sine doctrina nihil valent

[premjan]

One has intuitions whether one likes it or not, I suppose. The belief in miracles probably stems from a need to believe in the supernatural - perhaps the ego is a burden and the supernatural eases that burden.

[aguy2]

One has intuitions whether one likes it or not, I suppose. The belief in miracles probably stems from a need to believe in the supernatural - perhaps the ego is a burden and the supernatural eases that burden.

I have sometimes contended that "egos" are something of a necessary artifice, in that it was necessary for us to act with verve and elan, when objectively we were lucky to be able to find our mouth with a spoon.
aguy2(amen)

[EsoCyn]

I suppose, speaking within a context of a democratic society, and within the realm of politics, what I normally do is look at authority from two different filters;

Legitimate authority.
Illegitimate authority.

The former is authority that has been granted by the people according to a consensus or a majority vote. The people who are being ruled are giving consent to the ruler to levy certain powers, or the authority, and motions over the people in a limited scope. A legitimate authority is always subject to scrutiny by the people, and the authority can be abolished or reclaimed by the people on their say so, if they feel it's necessary.

Illegitimate authority happens when a person or a small group has unrightfully usurped power from everyone else's hands, or was a person, council or group that stepped outside of it's scope that was granted by the people, and was done without the approval or the consent of the people.

I haven't thought about the application of these two filters in other sectors of life much besides when speaking of capitalism. Parenting - it'd be harder to apply this sort of filter to. There are things that parents do that kids don't like, but the parent's have to do, or should do, for the safety and well being of the child.