What is the Highest Authority You Recognize?

[Mister Agenda]

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?

That is the most inane thing I have read all day, and it's been a day with many inane things in it.

---

Are some personal moral codes better than others?

Relatively better, at least.

---

The ultimate authority we all follow (in a vague sense, since the original question was deliberately vague) is our own judgment. There's no way to escape it, no matter how much you want someone else to be in charge of your life, you're still using your own judgment when you surrender your own judgment to what you believe is a higher authority.

[The Valkyrie]

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.

Crazy?

Likely just not "sane" in the conventional sense.

Wait.  No, you're right.  Fucking crazy.

[Brian37]

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.

Yep intentionally vague, that is how all good scams work. We know at some point all this long winded claptrap you will use to go "AH HA, now here is what my bible says". You are not the only Christian who tries this tactic, nor are you the only religion with followers who try to do this. 

No sorry, morality is ever changing in our species, if morality were static we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote. 

If you want experts in human behavior you would ask scientists, not apologists. You would ask psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists and anthropologists. Those are neutral people who give you ideas on our species knowledge of evolution and how morality has changed over time. 

Religious "morality" is an illusion used to do nothing more than protect social norms people are used to, the good thing for our species is that we have over time learned to scrap the more barbaric practices of antiquity. Our more pluralistic west is really only mostly developed over the past century. But even then we still have assholes trying to turn back the clock on LGBT equality and even the voting rights of minorities.

I am sure you can get a right wing Islamic nut to call himself an "expert" on morality and tell you how it is the duty of women to be chattel for men. Malala wouldn't agree with that though.

[AceBoogie]

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

This. Plus hilarious he puts this topic in "politics" as a lame attempt to disguise his motives.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

This. Plus hilarious he puts this topic in "politics" as a lame attempt to disguise his motives.

Actually, I was think about civil disobedience and the whole #Resistance thing. Plus it's 4/20.

[Brian37]

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

This. Plus hilarious he puts this topic in "politics" as a lame attempt to disguise his motives.

Whats more, is that someone in their lives sold them this crap, they thought it was nifty, so they come here thinking "Look guys, I got the greatest thing since sliced bread". Then when we don't suddenly role over, they back peddle, then they do things like this.

He is already in other threads still peddling his book, and ultimately that is where he is trying to lead us with this thread anyway. And he still fails to see like most theists, that every religion has followers who try this. 

Of course you have to become vague eventually because ultimately you are trying to defend outdated myth.

[ignoramus]

I obey my instincts, the wife (if I want to get fed), and the law of gravity.

Everything else can get stuffed...

[brewer]

Has any guy here identified his penis yet?

We're not fooling anyone you know.

[RoadRunner79]

This. Plus hilarious he puts this topic in "politics" as a lame attempt to disguise his motives.

Actually, I was think about civil disobedience and the whole #Resistance thing. Plus it's 4/20.

I think that it was a good question.  It is interesting to see how different people think, and I think there certainly is a difference between theist and a number of atheist anyways.  The different responses are interesting as well.   Some show careful consideration and thought.  To some it seems almost foreign to consider.   And for some, a simple question invokes a paranoia and avoidance (mostly because of the source) the likes of which I've only experienced when dealing with those in a cult.

[Tiberius]

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

Obliged to obey? Probably my conscience.