270
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
270 points (95.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43399 readers
844 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The firefighter is an authority on fire safety, and shouldn't be mocked for that authority
There's a lot of writing on subtle details of sorts of authority and it's a bit of a problem with language.
You could say that you voluntarily grant the firefighter temporary authority in some circumstances or whatever but to avoid quibbling over language for essays let's agree that there is a difference between someone imposing authority vs an individual deciding to believe someone should be listened to because of some domain expertise.
It's probably due to autism traits but "mocking authority" sounds like just mocking anyone relying on previous experience or education rather being able to justify their position in the situation at hand. Compare to the logical fallacy of "relying on authority"
When it comes to fire safety, I don't need to know exactly with sources why some areas need to be "fire cells" while other areas, similar in my eyes, doesn't if the information comes from a fire fighter. I rely completely on his/her authority on the matter and doesn't need any more evidence to let the fire fighter enforce those laws and regulations.
Im guessing that in this context "authority" in the thread starter text is shorthand for "perceived authority by the enforcer without real and safe recourse for the person having authority enforced upon"?
Since both the cop and fire fighter have means of legal repercussions if their authority is not followed I mean.
I'm not sure I follow. For the purposes of my example the firefighter has no legal recourse if you don't listen. They're just random volunteers where I live.
I don't want to get too hung up on definitions because that's counter productive I think. So what I'm talking about is that sometimes humans rely on power, real or perceived, in order to demand that others subsume their own desires and submit to those of the powerful.
Examples are police and other violent gangs - do what I say or I shoot you, capitalists - work for me or I will starve you, shitty parents - do what I say or I will hurt you.
I am calling that authority, notice that at no point is there consent from the person authority is being claimed over (it's not consent if it's coerced).
On the other hand people sometimes agree to perform certain roles with each other, or to be bound by certain rules in order to undertake some endeavour. For example when I am teaching my niece science she agrees to solve the problems I ask her to solve, but there is no coercion here. She is free to say at any moment "no" and I am free to either withdraw my offer to teach, ask a different question, propose a break or whatever else. Similarly working groups might elect someone among them to manage a project, but this isn't authority (as I have defined above) if they are free to relect a project manager, refuse directions or whatever.
Various writers have waffled to varying extents trying to pin down specific definitions. I side with those who think it's clearer to distinguish between the two social arrangements by not calling the second one authority.
Where I live the fire fighters are a professional force tasked with emergency tasks as well as enforcing compliance with fire safety regulations, as an example an association I work with had to pay a fine due to having some of the smoke detectors non functioning. Thats an authority I have no issue with, with goes back to the word "mocking" authority rather than "questioning" authority.
One sounds like the refusal of having another party authority over oneself, the latter implies a valuation if the authority is proper, fitting and reasonable or not.
but it's not the legal repurcussions that make you listen. If anything they undermine, as you need to establish whether advice is genuine or somebody throwing their weight around.