Hi, all!
I forgot that Cori dropped the course and we don't have anyone to post this week so I will go ahead and post something.
My question for you has to do with whether or not it is ever wrong to question authority. I'm thinking particularly of fringe theorists or extremists/zealots who question because they might be overly paranoid, who question just for the mere sake of questioning, or who question because they are in complete denial about facts (Holocaust Deniers come to mind here). Can you think of some examples where questioning authority would be dangerous and not worth the risks? Or do you think it should always be acceptable, no matter what?
Have at it, folks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I think there are definitely time when it is right NOT to question authority. For example, in war if your commander tells you to follow a certain plan and you deviate because you think your plan is better, then half your unit dies because you decided to think for yourself, that is a definite problem. Also, another example is, say you think the government is scamming you all the time and nothing they say is true just because you're paranoid like that all the time, and then say the government tells the general public that a certain city or somewhere is under a threat of either terrorists, or a plague or a natural disaster, and you think it's not going to happen because it's just all one big conspiracy, then it's your bad if you end up dieing from a falling plane, or small pox, or a volcano erupting. Another example is, when looking at the mentioned people who question authority because they are in complete denial about the facts, their denial just reflects their common sense and having a brain, or lack there of, in such matters. The only result that might come of questioning something that clearly is an irrefutable fact is making a fool of oneself and hurting people who were affected by the event that took place (Ex: Holocaust). So, overall, I do believe that questioning authority is not always a good thing, having authority, and listening to it is how society is able to work all over the globe. We can't all be leaders and free thinkers and questioners all the time without restraint, life just wouldn't work that way.
I think that it depends on why you are questioning the authority as well as what you hope to accomplish by questioning it. I agree with our own country's reasons for questioning and rebelling against the British. From the Revolution we gained so much and look how far we have come since then.
Authorities are put in place because without them the whole world would be in complete chaos. However there are times when questioning authority is a bad idea. For instance, questioning a teacher's authority just because you don't want to do the assignment is obviously a bad idea. The student will most likely get in trouble and there will be some sort of consequence.
I think that questioning authority is not always acceptable. Just like eveything in life, things done in excess or to an extreme are never good.
I wrote my paper on Night and while doing research on Elie Wiesel, I found out that he was attacked by a 22 year old Holocaust Denier named Eric Hunt in 2007. This is a prime example where questioning authority is completely unnessary and even more, it's wrong. Wiesel was attacked for sharing his personal story during the Holocaust because Hunt did not believe that the events of the Holocaust occured.
Our history is full of questioning authority being taken too far. Another example is the Columbine massacre. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not targeting any specific authority; Harris wanted to be the authority and Klebold grew to want the same thing through Harris. They were in the wrong as well.
Overall, questioning authority can be taken too far and become wrong. But done in a healthy manner is effective and needed in society.
I think that there are several times when you shouldn't question authority. If you have to take innocent lives, its not worth it. Fringe theorists and extremists should continue to question authority because it keeps the rest of society in check. There should be an opposing side to every idea or thought, and usually moderation is the result of opposition. In science, doubt is a stabilizing force and it aids scientists to look deeper at the truth. In the same way, those who question for the sake of questioning help society to pay attention to what is around them.
Honestly, I think that society decides whether questioning authority is acceptable or not. If enough people do not believe that the group or individual questioning has a true grievance, then it is not considered acceptable. It is entirely irrelevant if the grievance is plain as day or is obviously imaginary. What matters is if the questioner can convince enough other people to follow them. The quote "What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right" comes to mind. What you or I think is ludicrous really doesn't matter. What matters is if the majority backs up the questioning. If you believe in something that is very unpopular, you are labeled as insane. Think of Winston in 1984. He was considered to be dangerous and crazy because he refused to believe the media and in the Party. It didn't make any difference that he was correct about everything.
I agree with Bridget in that I agree with those who questioned authority during the American Revolution. I believe that was a justified QA (mainly because now I live in the USA :P). I also agree with Christian about the Columbine shootings, that those were not justified in the least. I also think that Kathleen had a good point about Winston in 1984. What is not popular or accepted by the majority draws the line at where questioning authority is accepted as well or not.
I agree with everyone so far, there's always a line that should be drawn regarding questioning authority. Motives are definitely a big part of this; if you're questioning authority out of purely selfish reasons then you probably shouldn't be questioning it at all. Cold hard facts are also something that it's really outrageous to question (especially regarding something as traumatizing as the Holocaust; I'm sure all people wish it didn't happen, but it's a solid part of history and there's no changing that, and anyone who says otherwise is probably more than a little crazy).
Another time when authority should not be questioned is if a large percentage of people will be harmed in you questioning authority. You have to make sure that the end will justify the means. For example, if you suddenly decide to blow up someplace you need to make sure that the cost of innocent lives is worth the official outcome (and usually if it is examined in this way, the cost is never worth it).
I think that the point that Kathleen brought up about popularity vs. what is actually right is very interesting. It's true, if there is adequate support behind any idea, people are quicker to accept and support the it.
I think another example of where questioning authority gets iffy is with vigilantism. As we were discussing in the class that covered Zorro, where is the line drawn for these "heroic" members of society. The only concrete idea that I felt we agreed on was that there is a line. I personally feel when taking people's lives comes into play, that is too far. Depending on each person's personal views, this line changes. The only thing that is consistent is that if this line is crossed, questioning authority is no longer acceptable.
I definitely think there is a line to questioning authority. If you question authority, what you are basically communicating is that you are going to take over the place of authority and decide what YOU think is right. To me, it all comes down to, "my idea is better than that idea."
I like Kathleen's point about society deciding where the line is drawn. If enough people stand behind an idea, then it is deemed acceptable and vice versa. For example, in V for Vendetta, would V's plan have been so epic and hopeful if he hadn't had all those people standing behind him? If all those people hadn't shown up at the end, then V's questioning would have looked like a terrorist attack on parliament, rather than a symbol of hope for the people.
I think there are some people out there who question authority just for the sake of being rebellious or making a scene, and I don't think it is reasonable to question authority for those reasons.
agree with everyone that has posted so far that line past which questioning authority is wrong. I think that this line is partially defined by what goals the person or group questioning authority has. I think that, when a group has a reasonable goal (as in not just desiring to cause havoc), they are able to make a much better case for their questioning, and are less likely to be past the line of what is okay. I think that it should always be okay to question an authorities actions in a way that isn't intended or likely to cause mass hysteria, and to attempt to change these actions, through peaceful means, to something that would generally benefit the public. This is the best I can come up with for something that should be acceptable no matter what. I think that something that can be important in insuring questioning is okay is that those questioning authority are able to recognize and respect the position of the authority but still disagree.
I believe that if the questioning turns to unnecessary violence then it is not correct. There are plenty of wars, especially in Africa, that have been fought on the grounds of "questioning authority." The two examples that come to mind are the Rwandan genocide and Joseph Kony's war. Both were times that began as questioning the authority of a particular group which in turn resulted in mass violence. The question is whether or not they were every truly questioning authority or simply looking to indulge in power-seeking and terrorizing others in order to become notorious. I believe questioning authority in the form of violence is always wrong, because it makes you no better than the authority that is being questioned. Suppressing or injuring others is never justified, even if it is identified as better than what there was before.
I feel I should explain my examples a bit. With the Rwandan genocide, the Tsutsis and Hutus were two ethnic group, one of which was said to have been suppressed by the other for decades prior to the genocide and during the genocide rose up and decided to "get revenge" and "question their power" by ridding Rwanda of their "hateful race." In reality it was an atrocious organized attacked on thousands of innocent civilians simply because they were of a different hereditary background.
In Uganda, Joseph Kony's war began as a religious questioning or sorts also loosely related to ethnicity. The religion which began as the basis of the conquest was turned to an extreme position by a man named Joseph Kony who converted the troops into the Lord's Resistance Army and began kidnapping children and drugging them to create an army in order to wreak havoc against the governments of Uganda, the Congo, and several surrounding African countries.
The Invisible Children website is a really good link if you are interested in more info.
I agree with everyone's posts so far. Although questioning authority is essential to keep a society like ours running, as with all things, extremes can be very bad. Extremists and zealots can take their questioning of authority too far, especially when they are reckless in their reasons and means of questioning said authority.I think that to question an authority efficiently, you need to be able to think rationally about why and how you question authority and know where the line between questioning authority and terrorism is. The problem with that is that extremists probably see their actions as rational and justified. This touches on what Kathleen said. What is rational is determined by the people who support the cause. Like Carly said, If V didn't have his followers, he might have been seen as the terrorist who blew up parliament, and if people didn't support the American revolution, it might have been seen as an extremist action to throw tea into the Boston Harbor. It is clear that questioning authority can go too far, but it is less clear to say who draws that line.
I think that the term "questioning authority" is too loosely defined. I don't think that denying the existence of the Holocaust is questioning any authority at all considering it is a documented historical event. I do not believe it is ever wrong to question authority, i do, however, believe there is a wrong time to do it. Like in times of immediate battle and such where safety is the first priority. I do believe that everyone's actions should be looked back to so that people can stop corruption and such. When questioning authority becomes dangerous though, such as in the case of questioning a tyrannical government, thats when it should be questioned. Extremists are always going to be radical and should be ignored unless a valid point is had by them.
There are times when questioning authority is not the best option. These times would mainly be when it was a matter of life and death. Anybody in a profession that serves to protect property or life have been taught not to ever question orders, and for good reason.
In many of our discussions, the question of where to draw the line came up a lot. It is always tough to draw a line for this, but I think two thinks should be used to do just that: the person's motives and whether or not society accepts the act. Purely personal motives make questioning authority into merely acting subversively. Lee made a good point about societal acceptions for questioning authority. Just another example, if Timothy McViegh had the public's approval for his bombing in Oklahoma City it would've been viewed differently. It sucks, but I really don't think there is any set line for when questioning authority is acceptable or not.
I agree with what people have posted. As long as somebody has the greater good of humanity in mind, there really should be no right or wrong time to question authority. However, when people start questioning authority in selfish or dangerous ways, it becomes quite unnecessary. Altough, it really depends on perspective. Most people so far have hailed the American Revolution as one of the greatest examples of questioning authority. However, at the time, it was quite dangerous. Standing up to the most powerful nation of the eighteenth century could have gone horribly wrong. If the British had won, then today we might talk about the rebels in the same way that we talk about the IRA or the Basque separatists who are essentially terrorists seeking independence.
Questioning authority is essential for the progression of society, but that is the only reason it should be used on a broad scale. If it doesn't help humanity, then there is no point.
I also think that questioning authority all the time can be detrimental. I have to say that I believe that to some extent it plays a big part in the problems that we have in the world today. We have determined that blindly following without questioning can cause great damage to a society. However in this day and age there are some instances in which questioning authority is just furthering the problems. Like skeptics who do not believe human beings are accelerating global climate change and are not environmentally conscious or those who do not vote because they think they are going against the system by doing so.
These are people who show that, in some occasions, questioning authority can go from challenge to apathy. By trying to question what the media calls for, they in fact become a part of society that sets the rest of us back. I also agree with Christian that vigilantism can border on crime in many instances. Anarchists are really against authority but it has been proven that in most cases some type of authority is needed to keep some peace. Breaking the social contract can come with very serious consequences. Even Belgium who is now officially the longest ungoverned country (as in they do not have an official government) has set a provisional council to help them keep things under control.
Lastly I also think that the reason why one questions authority should play a big role in weather or not it is legitimate. I truly believe that questioning authority just "for fun" can be dangerous.
So in conclusion, questioning is wrong when it feeds apathy, anarchy, or simply does not allow society to move forward .
I really liked Mariana's point that people could hide their apathy and detrimental ideas under the guise of "questioning authority." I think that people like to see questioning authority as something that will help the society, and people use that idea to cover up not only their apathy, but also their ignorance (in the case of Holocaust deniers and people who don't vote to prove a of point) by labeling it as "questioning authority". It is interesting to think that questioning authority can be bad not only when zealots do extreme acts (like bombing buildings) but in people who use their inaction or denial to "question authority" Both can be detrimental to the society. It just shows that questioning authority, like many things, is something that can be bad at either extremes.
As with everyone else, I agree that there is a time and place for questioning authority. For me personally, I feel that challenging authority is worthwhile when it results in some sort of improvement or betterment. So, for example, denying the Holocaust or accusing the government of mind control regimes does nothing good for anyone and can even cause harm.
If questioning authority can create some sort of improvement for someone, then it is appropriate. On the other hand, if someone is challenging authority simply to be conspiratorial or antagonistic, then it doesn't serve a worthwhile purpose.
There is definetely moments where questioning authority is not the right thing to do. An example I can think of is in Star Wars where Anakin doesn't do as Master Windu tells him and wait in the temple while the arrest Palpatine. The result ends in his being conquered by the dark side and Master Windu and all the Jedi dead. The ability to question authority is a weapon we have to put our foot down and make our voices heard. When abused, it can become violent and you can easily pass from questioning authority to becoming a corrupt authority yourself.
I think that Eric had a couple of interesting points. I didn't even think about not defining actions such as denying the holocaust as questioning authority, but I think that you would run into many hard points at which it wouldn't be clear if something should be defined as questioning authority or not. Additionally, some may argue that they are questioning an authority by denying the holocaust (questioning the bias or validity of the authority that documented it or, they may believe came up with it), and, by defining this action as not questioning authority, I don't think you can really address this argument effectively when you have excluded it by definition. (Just a couple thoughts, I think there are many cases where it may not be questioning authority, but I think there are also some in which it may.)
I also was wondering how you would define when a point made by an extremest group is valid, and why you thought they should be ignored otherwise (because I think they can bring up very good points, though their view/solution may be taken a little past what is accurate). I think pretty much everyone's posts have similar grey areas because it's hard to define, but I thought I'd give a couple thoughts on yours (I think it's the only one that's significantly different in ideology).
Reading everyone's comments about what defines questioning authority, especially as in Sam's example of the American Revolution, I was also thinking of things such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Voting Movement, and the Student Movement. All of these were seen as radical during the time by the majority of people and while they were met by violence from the authority figures, they were peaceful attacks on a flawed system. They were all cases in which questioning authority, even against great odds, eventually led to a positive outcome that is now presented in a very different matter. In this sense I believe the definition of questioning authority is also determined by historical context and cultural acceptance.
Post a Comment