What qualifies as one?
Firstly, let's give a plausible explanation of moral ethics. We will go with Kantian ethics because I think it does a very good job of explaining right/wrong. In a nutshell, Kant says that acting morally good is indifferent to acting rationally in order to achieve your will. The specific way in which one acts goes as follows:
Here's an example:
Suppose you need to really badly pass an exam. You will it that selling cheat sheets is universally acceptable. Now cheat sheets are the norm, which means the lecturers have to change the way exams are done to remove the problem, I dunno, a unique set of questions for each student on the computer. Your universal rule didn't logically help you achieve your will, and coincidentally it's often regarded that cheating is wrong.
And another one:
Suppose you need to borrow money from your friend but you have no way of paying back. You will it that keeping promises isn't necessary. Now your friend can't trust any promises since it might be a lie. Therefore you weren't able to get what you wanted, and coincidentally it's often regarded that lying is wrong.
Something else that is part of Kant's ethics is that everyone should be an end in themselves and not a means to an end. He would often say that this rule was actually the same rule as the one above, though that's disputed these days. Either way, this rule helps to capture the essence of less straightforward examples, such as this:
why is it wrong to make a joke out of someone? The rest of the group gets to laugh, right? Well, because you've used that person as a means to your end - making everyone laugh. Humans aren't tools, don't you know?
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. Well, suppose you were in a position where you could potentially help many people live better lives. Something like a president (oh, the irony) where you are equipped to actually cause change. Your will could very well be to destroy the world, but this won't be possible rationally without violating either rule. Therefore, if you want to act rationally, you will undoubtedly cause good. And to cause good with the position that you are in, you must therefore become an authority such that your commands are carried out in order to achieve your will.
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!!!)?
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.
Firstly, let's give a plausible explanation of moral ethics. We will go with Kantian ethics because I think it does a very good job of explaining right/wrong. In a nutshell, Kant says that acting morally good is indifferent to acting rationally in order to achieve your will. The specific way in which one acts goes as follows:
The Formula of Universal Law Wrote:Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature].
Here's an example:
Suppose you need to really badly pass an exam. You will it that selling cheat sheets is universally acceptable. Now cheat sheets are the norm, which means the lecturers have to change the way exams are done to remove the problem, I dunno, a unique set of questions for each student on the computer. Your universal rule didn't logically help you achieve your will, and coincidentally it's often regarded that cheating is wrong.
And another one:
Suppose you need to borrow money from your friend but you have no way of paying back. You will it that keeping promises isn't necessary. Now your friend can't trust any promises since it might be a lie. Therefore you weren't able to get what you wanted, and coincidentally it's often regarded that lying is wrong.
Something else that is part of Kant's ethics is that everyone should be an end in themselves and not a means to an end. He would often say that this rule was actually the same rule as the one above, though that's disputed these days. Either way, this rule helps to capture the essence of less straightforward examples, such as this:
why is it wrong to make a joke out of someone? The rest of the group gets to laugh, right? Well, because you've used that person as a means to your end - making everyone laugh. Humans aren't tools, don't you know?
Now, what does all of this have to do with authorities? Firstly, someone who is an authority has
Google: define authority Wrote:the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
therefore, giving orders etc. must mean the authority must have some sort of goal or intent - a will of some kind. Well, suppose you were in a position where you could potentially help many people live better lives. Something like a president (oh, the irony) where you are equipped to actually cause change. Your will could very well be to destroy the world, but this won't be possible rationally without violating either rule. Therefore, if you want to act rationally, you will undoubtedly cause good. And to cause good with the position that you are in, you must therefore become an authority such that your commands are carried out in order to achieve your will.
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!!!)?
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.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
