Questioning Authority

[Anansi]

When someone is set above another whether in rank, responsibility, privilege, or even just name it creates a divide that is mutually understandable. Regardless of how friendly or unfriendly relations are the two have positions that while not equal place them in a relationship. All relationships from time to time need a bit of clarification, justification, and communication to make them work in a healthy and cohesive fashion. Its not a matter of defiance many times its just seeking to understand of those above you. Why? Its the world's simplest question but often the hardest one to answer and in answering it both the inquirer and informer are often enlightened to the pros or problems of their situation. Many times things need to be questioned due to the fact that some have adopted the "just because' mentality to a point where they often don't have reason for action. It is inherent within the system if one does not understand the power above them they can accept it grudgingly, question it and attempt to reconcile, revolt, or simply leave. In the case of many simple reconciliation and at times negotiation is the optimal path to at least decent if not mutual understanding, slight but possibly grudging respect, or leading one to question their own decisions. A duty is not only to oneself but to those beneath and around some seem to forget that but does a reminder really hurt?

 

[Kawamura]

This is a bit too meandering to understand and comment on for me.

 

[iKitten]

Well, from what I understand, Iâ??m assuming that youâ??re speaking about whether or not the authoritative figure should be hurt. But yes, it is a two side of the coin type of deal, because we need the divide that keeps a balance of sorts. But as youâ??ve stated, weâ??ve adopted the â??just becauseâ? mentality, so I think people forget the bigger picture in the overall scheme of things. Extrapolating (I hope this doesnâ??t jump off of the topic youâ??re speaking of Anansi), but an example would be the United Statesâ??namely, Clintonâ??s term in question. I mean, this is a highly controversial topic on its own, but Iâ??ve been learning about how everyone hated what he had been doing in his ending years of service, with the whole taxing not being cut. Of course, no one likes to be taxed, but I think people forget that economically, itâ??s better for the individual to taxed, so that the money is spent on the community as a whole. While its nice to give to charity, many well-off/rich people do that to get the tax breaks, which doesnâ??t help the community as a whole, but just the two parties involvedâ??and leaning about a charity home, one would realize itâ??s not as effective as the government would be to spread the donation over the branching community/communities.

In a smaller scale, people tend to feel a numerous degree of things for polices. Sure, not all polices are the good guys in movies (ehâ?¦do movies even portray them as such anymore?), but not every police is off getting their doughnuts either. When a person gets a ticket for running that red-light or speeding over the limit, of course the person is bummed that they have to pay $xx. In fact, some people mock that polices have nothing else better to do than sit around and wait to catch people doing wrong; whichâ?¦well, itâ??s somewhat true. Itâ??s their job, and without the authoritative figure reminding the citizens to NOT do certain things, then it would be easy enough for the loose structure to be acceptable â??just becauseâ?.

So I think the â??hurtâ? that a person/group feels could be superficial (if thatâ??s the word for it). We hate it now, but it might (sometimes, things donâ??t go as planned) turn out for the overall better, and in the end, the person/group could look back and realize that their anger/hurt wasnâ??t as bad as it could have been, if the authoritative figure hadnâ??t done their job. Not every person gets placed in a â??higherâ? position for no reason, so perhaps they know a bit more about what theyâ??re doing than we do; even if it doesnâ??t appear like it at first. Then again Iâ??m basing my thoughts on the overall system of authorities that keep the citizens in line and take care of the town/city/state/country type of deal, so if youâ??re thinking of something on a different scale like at a job, thenâ?¦I guess none of this answered your question? >_>;;

[On a smaller and self noteâ?¦I canâ??t believe I posted in the academy sectionâ?¦*too stupid for this forum*]

 

[shinyka]

I had some epic post planned out, but I totally don't feel like posting it. So I'm going to post a video instead.
This should accurately fit what I was going to say.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V7aUT13qtM[/youtube]

 

[Mr Master]

There's an article a friend posted on his blog, and I can't get to the blog right now, so I'm posting here to remind myself to look it up when I'm at home, but the crux of the idea was, there are a handful of moral principles that are all valuable in various times and places, including obedience to authority and tradition AND questioning authority and tradition. And different people (including sides in an ideological debate) are frequently both being moral, just emphasizing different principles to different degrees.

An example: a house that is nothing but strong, blank walls is an airless prison inside. So it's valuable to knock down a wall or two. But you knock down all the walls, you don't have any structure whatsoever, and you're homeless. So you have to have some rigidity, somewhere, and it's a balance as to how much. Obedience to authority serves a good purpose in many instances, but you also have to have an awareness of when authority is itself misinformed or blatantly using you. How many excesses of the last administration could have been avoided if people weren't so used to obeying authority? The article I spoke of had at least one high-ranking Republican saying they ought to have questioned Bush more, earlier.

Like with so many things in the universe, the truth of things is more complicated than you think. Authority is useful, and rebellion is useful, but too much of either makes life complicated and disagreeable. And trickiest of all, the median comfort level is different for EACH INDIVIDUAL. So you'll never get a society-wide measure that suits literally everyone.

Welcome to the human race!

 

[Mr Master]

The article in question. Still a good read, and makes me want to be more politically tolerant.