We Should Question Authorities
We should not always trust our various authorities.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Authorities: politicians/scientists/experts/etc should be questioned and not trusted blindly because there is no suh thing as a pefect authority in any area or subject
Authorities: politicians/scientists/experts/etc should be questioned and not trusted blindly because there is no such* thing as a perfect* authority in any area or subject:
Every subject/issue is drenched in opinions/on-the-other-hands; authorities wish to be seen as perfect 'authorities': people who have all the answers.
They have a tendency to exploit their position by representing their own subjective/untested opinions/ideas/passions/lineages as fact. And therefore should be scrutinized(get second opinions when visiting a doctor; listen to both sides of an argument et cetera).
Your conclusion stated that ... because authorities are not perfect they should be questioned. This however does not follow, if authorities are not perfect then we should question whether they are an authority in their field or question whether they should be an authority.
I feel that all authorites are imperfect yet this should not be the sole reason to question them, do you doubt or question an imperfect circle because of its imperfection? or do you question it because of the message it tells you, its telling you a lie... i.e. that circles are not perfect (regular) this circle would be an elipsiss.
We should question authority only on the grounds that the message or information they give is not true or could be made truer, a crazy, mad angry scientist could present an ir-refutable theory , yet by your reasoning which should question the speaker not the things they say.
We should then, only question that which is fallible and that which could be improved. We should question what the authorities say, not what they are.
We are fallible
There are no absolute truths i.e. no truth that cannot hold some extent of doubt or no truth that everyone ascends to. For example, imagine einstein one of the most acclaimed physicists in his field. He proposed that quantum mechanics was wrong period, and yet to his day many question his authority in physics and on quantum mechanics. Also in more everyday terms, the mother can be wrong about whether you should go to school one day when your ill, she may send you to school, should you do so without questioning the mother? no because one she might not realise another perspective and you may come to the right conclusion.
Also by questioning authorities we can improve them, i.e. Einstein could not have improved his unification theory of everything if he was not questioned, if the mother was not questioned then she and the son will not do whats best on these situations, by questioning authority we enable debate and we enable a rational insight into the best conclusion.
It is the most essential 'should' in humanity, for rebellion, controversy etc. are at the heart of human progression. By not questioing and doubting mainstream views we never get a chance to reflect on whether these veiws are the best or not and , if we do not question we end up staying in the same place. By questioing we do not bring bad effects, what are the cons of curious questioning? and do these outweigh the positives i have just mentioned?
Conclusion: We should questioin authority on almost every issue.
Authorities can be corrupt. They can be racist and can kill inocent people. Take Hitler as an example.
If we believe ALL authorities are corrupt, then what's the point of having authority? It is true we have made mistakes in the past, but if we don't take these risks our nation would be a mess. There is a reason we have debates before elections for president. We don't blindly choose who gets to be on top. Their reasons will appeal to us and if we made a mistake we can bring him down. How can we bring him down? Because the leaders before them were smart enough to realize a situation like Hitler's might happen again and decided to prevent it in the future. Authority is authority. They are chosen by us to be authority and we have no right to question who WE thought would do the job well.
To much information doesn't get heard.
If everyone started questioning authourity the authority would get over whelmed and might not read the stuff that actualy matters.
Questioning authority equates to getting answers thus information from authority.
Yes; once authority is questioned, people in authority are on their toes; that is careful not to do things that are questionable.
Or at least (the thing I'm assuming you're tugging at; since I can't make the 'read-stuff-question'-connection) make an effort to hide/cover-up questionable activities.
But Assuming that authority was not questioned/kept-in-check/accountable, then it will be hypothetically all-revealing(though this is not necessary since leaders will/did have the choice to be 'above' sharing information as it will-have/had no consequence/meaning to the public) then we'd have a repetition of the 'divine rule of kings'/rulers-above-the-law.
Even with free-flowing information since authority will not be questionable/bounded-by-law; any shared political information will-be/was useless.
Why is the authority figure there?
Whether authority should be questioned depends on the reason for the authority in the first place. It would not be helpful for children to reject the concept of going to school because they are sent by one authority figure, their parents, to another, their teachers. In this situation it is all very well to have smaller questions but questioning whether you should go to school is not helpful. Similarly do we want an army that questions all its orders? Probably not as it leads to problems with dicipline and armies run by their soldiers would probably not be very effective. Most authority figures need to be questioned but not always by those who they have authority over. Essentially if we are to question every authority figure then in some cases they lose that authority which may or may not be a good thing.
Why is questioning whether school should be attended not helpful?
Not helpful to whom?
Home-schooled kids are performing better in tests and exam(ination)s than many of their school-going counterparts.They're closer to their families and are considerably less inclined towards using recreational drugs,weapons etc.
"Most authority figures need to be questioned but not always by those who they have authority over."- Agreement?
What do you think?