On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

Well, you certainly don't need to act rationally to act morally,

Because Kant was just flat out wrong.

though I think that what it means for something to be moral in the first place has a rational requirement.

Agreed. 

I'm not sure that you've even approached the essence of why x is wrong, in your examples, but as I said above, it's not as if you have to act or think rationally to reach the correct moral conclusion, lol.

I can elaborate on Kant further if you want me to.

 I'd go with something a little simpler.  Good is what helps, bad is what harms.

Is it bad to kill a terrorist about to bomb a building? 

Is it good to help with an assisted suicide?

Now, what does all of this have to do with authorities? Firstly, someone who is an authority has 

therefore, giving orders etc. must mean the authority must have some sort of goal or intent - a will of some kind.

snipped - quote issue, plus, who cares...you're already reaching for what you want to see out of a dictionary, lol

Stop trolling please. We have to begin with what we mean by "authority" and there's no better place than the english dictionary. Accept it, or get out! 

LOL, no.  Authority neither needs to be a "someone",

Elaborate please.

nor do rules require a will.

They don't require a will, that's right. What Kant tries to establish is a purely rational way of doing things. He talks about hypothetical imperatives, such that e.g. "if you're hungry, then you ought to eat". It's simply a state of affairs where the individual is free to choose what to do. And if they want to satisfy their hunger, then rationally speaking, they ought to eat. From here, he establishes moral absolutes (categorical imperatives) such that they are akin to physical laws. Therefore, all he's saying is that to go "with the flow" will mean you're acting rationally (and thus morally correct). The moral law doesn't actually care about your will though. It's the other way around.

Further...power wouldn't make a -moral- authority unless might made right.  

I didn't say raw power on its own. Just the fact that power can allow you to act rationally on a bigger scale than the individual. It's a means to an end. 

I suppose in this way, authority isn't given, but earned. And earning it would be a result of other people acting rationally, because if you have the resources in order to fulfill their will, then by their rationalization you must become an authority. After all, that is partly why we want certain people to become presidents, right (the irony!!!)?

I'm not much on will fulfillment as the source of morality.

With all due respect, your preferences don't make an argument true or false. Therefore, nothing to see here.

Therefore, by this reasoning, the ultimate authority would have to be a being with the most resources available to it - something akin to a god. Not only would it be an authority since it has limitless resources, but it would also be a moral one since it has the foresight to know precisely if an action is ultimately rational or not.

Well, since you went off the rails in the first step, and reference something that I don;t grant credence to in the next...it;s not surprising that..when you go telling us about what "ultimate" must mean here I neither agree nor care.

Why don't you agree? Explicate please.

I'm not sure why you seem to think something "akin to a god" is the ultimate moral authority.  Even imagining that the moral authority needs a will, to align itself to will fulfillment, and have the most resources available to achieve that....the "ultimate moral authority" could be a guy in Jersey named Joe.

Correct, provided Joe doesn't get one-upped by a god.

Honestly,. I don't think that there was a single mention of a credible morality,

Then you don't understand Kant, and apparently neither do my PhD ethics professors. 

let alone a credible moral authority, in that entire post.

But you correctly identified Joe could be it? You can't correctly give me an answer and not think it to be credible.