What is the Highest Authority You Recognize?

[Brian37]

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?

Nope, not going to get away with that crap here.

Our species behaviors, good or bad, our ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not our labels. If there are atheists trying to re event a "perfect morality" and write lists as to what they think all humans should do, then they are falling for the same old trap theism suffers from and no, I don't think atheists should be doing that either.

Ultimately humans are individuals, and if you are non violent and value common law, that is what matters. I will vote for a liberal theist before I would vote for Paul Ryan who likes atheist Ayn Rand. 

I don't owe other atheists loyalty either. My only "loyalty" is to the concept of equal protection under the law. AGAIN and get this through your head, atheists are not a gang, we don't agree on everything all the time, so not even that word should be used as a moral code. "Atheist" means "off" nothing more, not even that word has the magic power to make the individual do only good or do only bad. I judge everyone as individuals, including others who call themselves atheists.

[Macoleco]

Science

[Aroura]

I can't answer that without the question being placed into a context.

For instance, in AF and regarding cardiac surgery, my highest authority is Valk.

In AF and regarding physics, I'll go with Alex.

I won't even consider "obey". That is my individual choice, whether that entity has authority or not.

Agreed.

I think the best answer I could give that is general and would fit in many situations is Society.  But even that isn't nearly 100%.  There are things society find acceptable and I do not, and vice versa.

It's harder when you don't have a single pat answer.

[Brian37]

Science

I wouldn't leave it at that.

There is a difference between the tool "scientific method" and the individual human using the tool the "scientist".

Russia has nukes, Saudi Arabia has Nukes and those weapons require scientists to maintain them. What matters is the ethics of the individual, which should never be confused with the tool itself.

Don't confuse the hammer as being the same as the human using the hammer. A hammer can be used to build a house, but it can also be used to smash someone's skull in.

I put it like this. I value facts. I value objective neutrality in using scientific method. I value the science that leads to less suffering. I don't like that corporate scientists lie to the public to protect products that pollute. I don't like military scientists who support dictators like Un or theocracies like Saudi Arabia whom would use science to create weapons to threaten the world with.

But I do value the neutral tool of scientific method with applied ethically, like a doctor has an oath to heal and reduce suffering.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Conscience, since the question is so general.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are some personal moral codes better than others?

I would be surprised if the possessors of those moral codes didn't think so, but I have no idea what it means or refers to, specifically.  An example, maybe?

Are you clear now, though, on the difference between acting on a personal moral code and having no moral code, acting merely on a whim?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Chad, your god acts on whim, and yet you worship him as the font of moral objectivity.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Conscience, since the question is so general.

I was intentionally vague since there are various types of authority - moral, expert, civil, etc. At the same time, there is a case to be made that expert and civil authority are in some sense derivative. When should someone defer to expert opinion? Why (or perhaps when) should people respect their civil authorities. As for following one's conscience, how does someone justify privileging his own conscience over the consciences of others? For example, we never say to another person, "You shouldn't do that because it violates my conscience." Instead, we tell others they are wrong by appealing to some shared higher authority - the law, reason, consensus opinion, holy writ, common decency, etc.

Is there such a thing as an expert opinion on moral facts - a respected thinker or group of people, like elders, on whom others should trust over their own personal feelings? And if there are, why should we trust them, if not because of our own judgement that they are reliable. A bit of a dilemma that one.

As an additional wrinkle, I would point out that there is a difference between knowing of a thing and knowing about it (in other words that something is versus what something is.) People can agree that there are moral facts without agreeing on how to determine what they are.

[Crossless2.0]

Me.

Just be careful about who you follow. I don't know, but I've heard it said that bitch is crazy.

Don't tell her I said that.

[Ravenshire]

There is no ultimate authority, Chad. No matter how much you want one to be there.