What is the Highest Authority You Recognize?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The voices in my head have instructed me to not answer this question.

Boru

[chimp3]

There are experts and then there is authority.

 My physician is an expert. I try to heed his advice.

  The police and the courts are authorities. When I was younger I disobeyed the civil authorities when it came to smoking marijuana. My own authority was superior in that case. In cases of rape, murder, armed robbery I have obeyed my own conscience. I do not want to be that type of human. I drive safely because I do not want to kill someone else or myself in a fiery crash.

In terms of seeking knowledge I choose experts in that field of knowledge. I read books on science written by scientists. I do not seek science knowledge from politicians, preachers, or sportscasters.

To answer the OP directly, since life is multifaceted I do not recognize any ultimate authority.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The voices in my head have instructed me to not answer this question.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

'Obliged' implies that I owe someone my obedience. I have many obligations but they do not include obedience to anyone or anything in that sense. I may choose to obey a police officer, or under unlikely circumstances, choose not to obey a police officer. Gravity holds me down whether I choose to obey it or not.

I owe myself enough respect to maintain my integrity and follow the dictates of my conscience. I suppose you could say I'm obliged to obey the most ethical and wisest part of myself, though I have sometimes failed to live up to that obligation.

[Aoi Magi]

Myself, obviously.

[Brian37]

What is the highest authority you recognize? In other words, to what or to whom do you feel obliged to obey and why?

Loaded question on your part and lousy tactic as well.

There is in the west given power by the consent of the governed. I obey speed limits and police, not because they are perfect, but because WE consent to OUR laws. If a police officer breaks the law they are held, or at least should be held to the same standards as a citizen. If a cop murders someone or rapes someone, they can get arrested and convicted too.

As far as scientific fact, I will listen to objective neutrality based on independent peer review. 

You are the one who "obeys", objective people consent and review. 

We don't obey our president, we consent to voting, and even if the president breaks the law, like Nixon did, we can subject even the president to impeachment. NO blind obedience required.

We have no pope or holy person, we have no holy book. Your loaded question is baiting an nothing more than you trying to justify your own prejudice.

[The Grand Nudger]

My son just informed me that I have an obligation to feed him drumsticks for lunch.  I'm gonna do that, because he sounds really serious (and because I'm clearly the world's best dad, lol).  

You can add that to the list it helps Neo.  I'm presently recognizing my 4 year old son as the highest authority on the matter of whether or not I have an obligation in ice cream to fulfill.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't really 'recognize' or 'obey' any authority in my every day life. I mean I follow the speed limit and pay my taxes and generally try to treat people with at least basic respect and consideration. I don't feel like I answer to anyone though. I pretty much do whatever I want to do while simply following a moral code I feel is true to me. Which is all we can really genuinely do. Follow our own moral codes.

You consider your own moral code authoritative, yes? If so, how is this any different that having no moral code and acting entirely on whim?

[The Grand Nudger]

You consider your own moral code authoritative, yes? If so, how is this any different that having no moral code and acting entirely on whim?

Aren't the differences obvious and self stated even in that sentence?

One the one hand, a moral code exists....your moral code - so, obviously you have a (as in, at least one, lol?) moral code...not no moral code - as in..none.  Less than one.

Continuing, a moral code exists which is informing a persons actions - so obviously you aren't acting entirely on a whim, you're acting on that moral code, that does exist, that you possess.  

......?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You consider your own moral code authoritative, yes? If so, how is this any different that having no moral code and acting entirely on whim?

Aren't the differences obvious and self stated even in that sentence?

One the one hand, a moral code exists....your moral code - so, obviously you have a (as in, at least one, lol?) moral code...not no moral code - as in..none.  Less than one.

Continuing, a moral code exists which is informing a persons actions - so obviously you aren't acting entirely on a whim, you're acting on that moral code, that does exist, that you possess.  

......?

Are some personal moral codes better than others?