Should authority be questioned?

[SacredWarrior]

When it comes to authority whether it be the government, your family, or superiors at work, do you think all authority should be scrutinized and questioned? I say yes for the simple fact that they're humans and in the end are just as likely to screw up or do something crazy.

I don't trust a government official anymore than I trust my neighbor. Just because someone in a position of authority does good deeds doesn't mean they get special treatment and are immune from criticism. This can definitely create problems and is nothing short of tyranny when it comes to government and state employees.

I shouldn't have to explain parental or family authority since they can pretty much fall under the same issues and same goes for work.

 

[York]

I tend to treat everyone as equally as possible. This essentially means that I will not hesitate to question authority when an action taken does not make sense to me. Typically there is nothing more than some clarification and such, but in the cases where a decision of a higher-up is actually incorrect or what have you... There will often be more than just a few questions flying around.

TLDR: Generally speaking, I guess regardless of who I am interacting with, I always take stuff with at least a grain or two of salt... And do not usually give anyone, regardless of who they are an "immunity" to criticism.

 

[Vars]

Depends on context.

Imminent danger: Never.

Almost every other situation: Only if it doesn't appear to make sense.

 

[An Otaku]

I'm going to predict most everyone will vote 'Yes' or "basically yes without committing to it" in the form of 'Depends on the Authority,' but there's nothing overtly wrong with that. Plenty of people get plenty of things wrong. Just how it is. Questioning the top brass is only logical knowing that they're human, and capable of screw-ups (of course, that's assuming positive intent with capability of failure, over negative intent).

What I'd be curious to know is... what authorities people would not think to/vocally question? The police would be one of those for me. Technically the OG is about questioning 'all' forms of authority versus not, but I'm still curious about what people wouldn't question.

 

[Legens Legentis]

How dare you use nude Revy to gain my attention?!

But yeah authority should always be questioned.

 

[Holmishire]

Questioned? Yeah, sure. Obeyed? Definitely.

 

[junebug]

Yes, questioned no matter what. They're humans like us. Just because they're in higher positions of power doesn't mean they should be able get away with things without people questioning them.

 

[Greenie]

Depends on context.

Imminent danger: Never.

Almost every other situation: Only if it doesn't appear to make sense.

This is pretty much my stance.

If there was an option Depends on the situation, that's probably what I would have voted for.

 

[Shiri]

Oh yes, of course - well, within reason. In retail if someone holds up the store you are trained to give them the money. The money is not worth your life. It's really not.

 

[IntrusivePenDesperateSword]

Absolutely everything, much less the people in charge of society, should be questioned. Why would you ever not?

 

[Jorick]

Well yeah, not questioning authority means blindly obeying orders without considering if they're rational or moral or so on. Only fools and brainwashed zealots/extremists don't question authority.

A far more interesting question to me is how far should one's questioning of authority go? There are a lot of different levels of questioning one could use, depending on the situation and authority figure in question. The lowest and most basic one that should be used on all authority figures is the sniff test: via cursory inspection and thought on the issue, does it smell like bullshit? A little higher up would be questioning whether or not the authority figure is properly carrying out their duties or following the rules/laws themselves, such as questioning a cop's potentially illegal search of your property. Another higher level of questioning would be to question the very rules and such themselves, which are an authoritative construct in and of themselves. You could also question whether or not an authority figure actually does have any legitimate authority over you or others, perhaps in the form of accusing them to be a fraud or to have obtained their position through fraudulent means.

Another interesting point to consider is what sort of repercussions one could face for questioning authority, and that consideration should weigh in on your choice of level of questioning to apply. For example, people are free to question the shit out of my authority as an admin, but if they break rules badly enough I'm still quite capable of banning them because I have a level of factually indisputable authority on this website. Alternatively, a coworker who is of equal rank to you but is trying to tell you how you have to do your job has basically zero true authority and can be questioned with impunity.

The poll question is the least interesting question to ask regarding authority. :P

 

[Cactus Jack]

In a political sense, yes, the people should always maintain awareness of the state's actions, and they should always be willing to point out when a state's actions are unlawful or demonstrate incompetence. In a democratic society, failure to exercise one's right and ability to call attention to a government's failings or acts of malfeasance results in the erosion of democratic institutions; eventually, you no longer have that right or that ability, and as Jorick mentioned, there are repercussions. We're seeing more or less this scenario-- brazen legal and social efforts to curtail the ability of the public to freely make their voices heard and the concentration of authority-- play out right before our eyes in Turkey.

Granted, 'question authority' is a pretty nebulous turn of phrase, and it's much easier to pay lip service to the idea of it than to actually do it. It's a whole lot more than just occasionally reading the news and then posting 140 very angry characters on Twitter; questioning authority is pretty meaningless if you make no effort to actually be heard by the authority you're questioning. That means educating others and promulgating awareness of the perceived malfeasance or incompetence, finding platforms for the discussion of issues, joining with other citizens because a hundred voices are much more difficult to ignore than one. It also, in my opinion, means thinking critically, avoiding nationalist or populist rhetoric (which tends to sway large swathes of people into turning off the part of their brain that questions authority and turning on the part of their brain that thinks 'this person is offering really simple solutions to really complex problems, sounds like somebody who deserves unmitigated executive power'), and, yes, being willing to take risks and face repercussions. If it is the duty of every citizen of democratic society to question authority, then it's also the duty of every citizen of democratic society to remember those who paid a price to win them the right to question authority.

 

[Vars]

What I'd be curious to know is... what authorities people would not think to/vocally question? The police would be one of those for me. Technically the OG is about questioning 'all' forms of authority versus not, but I'm still curious about what people wouldn't question.

I think what questioning authority accomplishes most of the time is simply taking up time. Of course, when I read the statement "question authority" I am interpreting it literally, like a boss orders you to jump and you respond with "Why?"

So in this case, which is the case of taking up time, we have to consider is it worth it? Or does it ultimately just waste time?

Which leads us to situations of imminent danger, which is where time is arguably the most important. Immediately people's minds usually go to the military, but consider also work safety. Something as "dumb" as wearing a hard hat while on top of a ladder is a safety issue. You could argue all day that wearing a helmet on a ladder is dumb and wastes resources and valuable labor hours. But consider that preventing serious head trauma on the occasion someone falls off a ladder without wearing protection... That's far more valuable (not even taking OSHA laws into consideration).
This becomes an issue of imminent danger if you're ontop of a ladder, helmet nearby but not on your head because you think it's dumb, and someone walks by. They say put the damn thing on, you say no because it's dumb, but hey look the ladder wobbles and now you're on the floor. Similar situations happen all the time. Time is critical in these situations. War / military operations (higher ranking guy says get down to avoid gunfire for example) is the most well-known but far from the only application.

Here's a rather benign-looking situation that could've ended in death had they sat and argued with OSHA any longer:

In more contemporary discourse, we might be thinking about cops who you believe are overstepping their bounds. Today, I would do anything a cop says, mostly because the 'corrupt cop' thing is widespread enough that I honestly believe I'd get in worse shit if I didn't go with it, even if I thought it was wrong. ... Which leads to the worse situation of being forced to, as an innocent person, decide between a plea deal or 90% chance of life-ruining prison sentence for something you didn't do. But then it still comes down to time. How much is your time worth in comparison to your pride?

If we go more abstract, and are simply telling eachother to just not take what all politicians say as absolute truth, which maybe is where we're going with here, I dunno, then yeah. That is obvious. Don't fall victim to the appeal to authority fallacy. But if you steer too far the other direction, and refuse to believe everything then you may be committing an even worse disservice to yourself.

Really though, I think you're (@SacredWarrior ) not asking the right question. You should really think about what you want from the questions you're asking.
Your question reminds me of this scene:

In conclusion, I 100% agree with @Rainforest Spirit 's last paragraph.

edit: [spoili] Removed a dumb paragraph I made, but enjoy your free answer to one of the trivia questions (See Jorick's post below)
=] [/spoili]

 

[Jorick]

Consider @Jorick. Let's suppose he banned someone, and a member (not the one that was banned) thinks that ban is wrong. Now they could argue all day about it but ultimately discussing a third party's bans are against the rules, so it would never accomplish anything. And truthfully, if @Jorick wanted, he would not be abusing his power if he too banned the questioner is they never stopped questioning/harassing him about it. In this case, nothing gets accomplished, nobody feels vindicated, all it does is waste time.

That is actually rather inaccurate. XD

What's against the rules is airing dirty laundry, AKA bringing personal drama out in public. Talking shit about a banned member, for example, would be against the rules. Bringing the discussion of what a banned person may or may not have done wrong, such as by publicly demanding an admin explain it then and there, could be airing dirty laundry.

However, coming directly to an admin or a security staff member via private message to ask about a ban not only allowed, it's encouraged if you have questions or concerns about it. We've had people come and argue bans of friends with us, and we always explain the facts as best we can while respecting the privacy of all parties involved, and many have remained in disagreement with our choices but also remain on the site and unbanned. There simply is no rule against the act of discussing a ban, only rules against certain ways of doing it.

Just had to clear up that misconception. Carry on with the discussion on the topic at hand, folks. If anyone has questions about this policy, please make a different thread and tag me in it with questions, or send me a private message and I'd be happy to explain. :P

 

[Vars]

@Jorick I was picturing a public thread about how X being banned was totally wrong (when it actually wasn't) and Y demanded you unban X, but I see where I went wrong in my explanation. Thanks.

 

[DJFlare84]

Yes, for the simple fact that criticism is good for you, and Authority is not exempt from benefiting from some good criticism.

 

[Supernova]

Yes, you should always question things being told to you. Everyone is a human with mistakes and issues, and no one is perfect. Something that might be good for them might not work for you. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen to the authorities opinion and try to understand where they are coming from.

 

[DJFlare84]

Actually, lemme change my answer.

You should question authority if you actually have a question of it.

If you think the authority so far is doing a great job and you have no concerns, don't worry about it.

But when you DO have a question for it, you have a moral obligation to present that question. And they've a moral obligation to answer it openly and honestly. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but definitely sincerely.

If they can't do that, there might be something wrong with your authority.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

One who doesn't question authority ceases to be an individual, but rather simply a pawn or extension of whoever holds power over them. And an Authority figure who isn't questioned goes unchecked and becomes a tyrant.

Therefore, I say we all start asking our beloved admins questions.

@Kitti Cats or Dogs?
@Jorick Why don't you just call yourself little finger already? :P
@Astaroth Why not Astawroth? Or Astaroof?
@Buttercorn How would you react to an Owl made out of buttercorn?

I'd start asking more staff members... But at that point I think we'd need to make another thread and turn it into a game. XD

Consider @Jorick. Let's suppose he banned someone, and a member (not the one that was banned) thinks that ban is wrong. Now they could argue all day about it but ultimately discussing a third party's bans are against the rules, so it would never accomplish anything. And truthfully, if @Jorick wanted, he would not be abusing his power if he too banned the questioner is they never stopped questioning/harassing him about it. In this case, nothing gets accomplished, nobody feels vindicated, all it does is waste time.

As a non-staff member whose been on the other side of this (several times) I feel the need to second what Jorick said to this.
There was an incident a few months ago where I went at him rather heavily with questions pertaining a banned member.
Then you got the whole Asmo fundraiser deal, where I had a rather bit "I am dissapoint" rant at the Staff as a whole in a more... emotional, state of mine.
And then a few other bans that happened over time.

So... I should of been banned several times by now. XD

 

[Dipper]

Always question. Not to undermine authority, but to be certain what they're telling you to do is coming from someone who is, you know, sane.