107 results found (0.006 seconds)


The notion of authority features in ethics, politics, law, and religion in ways that can sometimes seem paradoxical. In ethics, the idea of authority is presupposed in the moral instruction of children whether by parent, guardian or teacher. It also features in the idea of a standard of correct moral judgement variously represented by the ‘ideal observer’, the ‘virtuous agent’, and the ‘moral exemplar’. On the other hand there are strong tendencies in recent and contemporary ethical thought that emphasise moral autonomy, freedom of conscience and personal choice and these seem to tell against the idea of external moral authorities. In law and politics the question of the authority of government is connected to that of rule backed by the legitimate threat of coercive force, but there is common concern to limit this power as restrictive of freedom. In religion, believers typically adhere to doctrines and practices handed on by authoritative texts or teachers, but again it is often said ‘creeds’ and ‘dogmas’ are at odds with personal religious conviction. The way through these seeming tensions lies with a distinction between three notions of authority: 1) expertise, 2) guiding role, and 3) power of command. 1) relates to knowledge or skill, 2) concerns a function necessary for a practice, and 3) has to do with directing activity. There are connections between these notions but they are nevertheless distinct. Having a guiding role or power of command need not be based on expertise, equally expertise does not necessarily imply directing or commanding others, and being a guide does not entail having power of command. In the context of Catholicism the central idea of authority is not that of personal expertise or commanding power, but of a guiding role with respect to matters of faith and morals. This is expressed in terms of the Church’s ‘magisterium’ (from magister = teacher) or teaching authority which takes two forms: ordinary and extraordinary magisteria. Both are concerned with preserving, interpreting, applying and proclaiming divine revelation as contained in scripture and apostolic tradition. The first is located in teaching given by bishops singly or collectively and by Church bodies charged with this responsibility. The second is the preserve of Ecumenical Councils of the Church, and of the Pope in his role as ‘Supreme Pontiff’, when Council or Pope define or solemnly declare a teaching to be part of authentic Catholic faith and practice.

  • http://blogs.law.columbia.edu
    • PDF
    • Suggested

    Hannah Arendt BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE Six Exercises in Political Thought 1961 THE VIKING PRESS NEW YORK Copyright © 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961 by Hannah Arendt All rights reserved Published in 1961 by The Viking Press, Inc. 625 Madison Avenue, New York 22, N.Y. Published simultaneously in Canada by The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited Part of Chapter III was first published in Nomos I: Authority, edited by Carl J. Friedrich for the American Society of Political and Legal Philosophy, copyright © 1958 by the President and Fellows of Har- vard College, published by The Liberal Arts Press, a Division of The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. Part of Chapter VI was first published in Daedalus, copyright © 1960 by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and other chapters or parts of chapters in Chicago Review, Partisan Review, and Review of Politics. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from The Viking Press, Inc. Library of Congress catalog card number: 61-7281 Printed in the U.S.A. by Vail-Ballou Press PREFACE: The Gap between Past and Future I. Tradition and the Modern Age 2. CONTENTS NOTES The Concept of History: ANCIENT AND MODERN 3. What Is Authority? 4. What Is Freedom? INDEX 5. The Crisis in Education 6. The Crisis in Culture: ITS SOCIAL AND ITS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE 3 17 41 91 143 173 197 227 243 3 WHAT IS AUTHORITY? I N order to avoid misunderstanding, it might have been wiser to I in the authority? For it is my contention that we are tempted and entitled to raise this ques- tion because authority has vanished from the modern world. Since we can no longer fall back upon authentic and undisputable experi- ences common to all, the very term has become clouded by contro- versy and confusion. Little about its nature appears self-evident or even comprehensible to everybody, except that the political scientist may still remember that this concept was once fundamental to politi- cal theory, or that most will agree that a constant, ever-widening and deepening crisis of authority has accompanied the development of the modern world in our century. This crisis, apparent since the inception of the century, is politi- cal in origin and nature. The rise of political movements intent upon replacing the party system, and the development of a new totalitarian form of government, took place against a background of a more or less general, more or less dramatic breakdown of all traditional authorities. Nowhere was this breakdown the direct result 91 92 Between Past and Future of the regimes or movements themselves; it rather seemed as though totalitarianism, in the form of movements as well as of regimes, was best fitted to take advantage of a general political and social atmos- phere in which the party system had lost its prestige and the govern- ment's authority was no longer recognized. The most significant symptom of the crisis, indicating its depth and seriousness, is that it has spread to such prepolitical areas as child-rearing and education, where authority in the widest sense has always been accepted as a natural necessity, obviously required as much by natural needs, the helplessness of the child, as by political necessity, the continuity of an established civilization which can be assured only if those who are newcomers by birth are guided through a pre-established world into which they are born as strangers. Be- cause of its simple and elementary character, this form of authority has, throughout the history of political thought, served as a model for a great variety of authoritarian forms of government, so that the fact that even this prepolitical authority which ruled the rela- tions between adults and children, teachers and pupils, is no longer secure signifies that all the old time-honored metaphors and models for authoritarian relations have lost their plausibility. Practically as well as theoretically, we are no longer in a position to know what authority really is. In the following reflections I assume that the answer to this ques- tion cannot possibly lie in a definition of the nature or essence of "authority in general." The authority we have lost in the modern world is no such "authority in general,” but rather a very specific form which had been valid throughout the Western World over a long period of time. I therefore propose to reconsider what authority was historically and the sources of its strength and meaning. Yet, in view of the present confusion, it seems that even this limited and tentative approach must be preceded by a few remarks on what authority never was, in order to avoid the more common misunder- standings and make sure that we visualize and consider the same phenomenon and not any number of connected or unconnected is- sues. Since authority always demands obedience, it is commonly mis-

  • https://link.springer.com

    This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price includes VAT (Mexico) Rent this article via DeepDyve. Notes See, for example, Nicomachean Ethics II, 1107a. For an overview of different varieties of ethics see Oakley (1996). For an overview of the history of utilitarianism, see Driver (2014). Here, I am using Ellington’s (1993) translation of Kant’s Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. The same, it should be noted, is true for previous versions of moral exemplarism. This should not be taken to imply that exemplarism does not also have a long tradition in non-Western philosophies. See Cottine (2016) and Kidd (2018, 2020). One could argue that, besides deontological and utilitarian approaches to education, exemplarist informal education could also be used to rehabilitate indoctrinated students. Although this is true, I believe that approaches relying on the principles of utilitarian and deontological moral theories would fare better since they would provide direct moral guidance to students – rather than rely on them to choose the ‘true’ exemplar over the one promoted by ‘evil forces’. Nonetheless, my argument does not hinge on this claim. No matter which approach is better at rehabilitating indoctrinated agents, it still remains that the theory of moral exemplarism does not safeguard adequately against the indoctrination and manipulation of agents’ moral reasoning by ‘evil forces’ promoting false role models and ideals. Here, it might be important to note again that there is no guarantee that such approaches (or any other approach for that matter) are going to help rehabilitate indoctrinated students – i.e. un-indoctrination is not always possible. This goes to show how big a problem it is that the exemplarist moral theory cannot adequately safeguard against being used for indoctrination purposes. For more on the problem of indoctrination in educational approaches to moral exemplarism (and potential solutions to it) see Sanderse (2013), Croce (2019) and Osman (2019). For a more general discussion of indoctrination in moral education see Merry (2005), Copp (2016) and Siegel (2018). References Annas, J. (2004). Being virtuous and doing the right thing. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 78, 61-75. Broadie, S. (1991). Ethics with Aristotle. New York: Oxford University Press. Butterfield, F. (2018a). In my father’s house. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Butterflied, F. (2018b). When crime is a family affair. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/crime-runs-family/573394/. Carr, D. (2019). Moral exemplification in narrative literature and art. Journal of Moral Education, 48, 358-368. Copp, D. (2016). Moral education versus indoctrination. Theory and Research in Education, 14, 149-167. Cottine, C. (2016). Role modeling in early Confucian context. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 50, 797-819. Croce, M. (2019). Exemplarism in moral education: Problems with applicability and indoctrination. Journal of Moral Education, 48, 291-302 Croce, M. (2020). Moral exemplars in education: a liberal account. Ethics & Education, 10, 186-199. Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Ellington, J.M. (1993). Kant: Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Hackett. Hoffman, H. (1996). The triumph of propaganda. Providence: Berghahn Books. Hursthouse, R. (1991). Virtue theory and abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20, 223-246. Hursthouse, R. (2001). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kershaw, I. (1989). The `Hitler myth’: Image and reality in the third Reich. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kidd, I.J. (2018). Adversity, wisdom, and exemplarism. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 57, 379-393. Kidd, I.J. (2020). ‘Following the way of heaven’: Exemplarism, emulation, and Daoism. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 6, 1-15. Koonz, C. (2003). The Nazi conscience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Korsgaard, M.T. (2019). Exploring the role of exemplarity in education: Two dimensions of the teacher’s task. Ethics & Education, 14, 271-284. Kotsonis, A. (2020). On the limitations of moral exemplarism: Socio-cultural values and gender. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23, 223–235. Article  Google Scholar  Louden, R.B. (1984). On some vices of virtue ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 227-236. McDowell, J. (1979). Virtue and reason. The Monist, 62, 331-355. Merry, M. (2005). Indoctrination, moral instruction, and nonrational beliefs: A place for autonomy? Educational Theory, 55, 398-420. Mühlberger, D. (2003). The social bases of Nazism, 1919-1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oakley, J. (1996). Varieties of virtue ethics. Ratio, 9, 128-152. Osman, Y. (2019). The significance in using role models to influence primary school children’s moral development: Pilot study. Journal of Moral Education, 48, 316-331. Rentschler, E. (1996). The ministry of illusion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ross, D., & Brown, L. (2009). Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sanderse, W. (2013). The meaning of role modelling in moral and character education. Journal of Moral Education, 42, 28-42. Schmiechen‐Ackermann, D. (2018). Resistance. In A companion to Nazi Germany, eds. S. Shelley Baranowski, A. Nolzen, and Szejnmann C. W., 126-149. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Siegel, H. (2018). Education’s epistemology: Rationality, diversity, and critical thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In E. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Solomon, D. (1988). Internal objections to virtue ethics. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 13, 428-441. Voigtländer, N., & Voth, H. (2015). Nazi indoctrination and anti-Semitic beliefs in Germany. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 112, 7931-7936. Welch, D. (1993). The third Reich: Politics and propaganda. London: Routledge. West, D.J., & Farrington, D.P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? New York: Crane & Russak. Zagzebski, L. (2010). Exemplarist virtue ethics. Metaphilosophy, 41, 41-57. Zagzebski, L. (2015). Admiration and the admirable. Aristotelian Society, 89, 205-221. Zagzebski, L. (2017). Exemplarist moral theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Download references Acknowledgements Special thanks to Theodore Scaltsas and Renia Gasparatou. Author information Authors and Affiliations School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 3 Charles Street, Dugald Stewart Building, Room 2.16, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD, UK Alkis Kotsonis AuthorsAlkis Kotsonis View author publications You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar Corresponding author Correspondence to Alkis Kotsonis. Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The author declares that they have no conflict of interest. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions Reprints and Permissions About this article Cite this article Kotsonis, A. Moral Exemplarism as a Powerful Indoctrinating Tool. J Value Inquiry (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09844-8 Download citation Accepted: 16 July 2021 Published: 05 August 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09844-8 Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • https://www.youtube.com
    Natural Law and the Roots of Authority

    Recorded in 2000. Political Philosophy involves the study of the basic concepts of political philosophy from a Thomistic point of view. Building upon the political philosophy of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, twentieth century Thomists Jacques Maritain and Yves R. Simon fashioned a timely and compelling philosophical exploration of political life and a defense of liberal democracy. This course explores the basic texts of Aristotle and Aquinas and examines two important books: Philosophy of Democratic Government (1951) by Yves R. Simon and Man and the State (1951) by Jacques Maritain. Topics to be studied include the nature and purpose of political association, the origin of obligation, the nature of power and authority, the relationship of law and liberty, the role of property and the nature of justice, political equality, and human rights, the relation of Church and state, and the moral political dimensions of war and international relations.

  • The Limits of Moral Authority

    Dale Dorsey considers one of the most fundamental questions in philosophical ethics: to what extent do the demands of morality have normative authority over us and our lives? Must we conform to moral requirements? Most who have addressed this question have treated the normative significance of morality as simply a fact to be explained. But Dorsey argues that this traditional assumption is misguided. According to Dorsey, not only are we not required to conform to moral demands, conforming to morality's demands will not always even be normatively permissible---moral behavior can be (quite literally) wrong. This view is significant not only for understanding the content and force of the moral point of view, but also for understanding the basic elements of how one ought to live.

  • https://www.youtube.com
    Vindicating Authority

    Modernity has attempted to do away with authority. It does this not most commonly by advocating anarchy. Rather, it justifies its own established powers in terms of a fictive self-rule, and purports to replace the arbitrary dictates of power--and much of what makes us human--with scientific rationality. But authority is necessary to human life, and not just as a medicine for weakness and evil. It arises from and serves what is noblest in us. The French Catholic philosopher Yves R. Simon made this case in A General Theory of Authority. With the help of Dominican friar Fr. Aquinas Guilbeau, Thomas dives into this most enlightening book. Links https://twitter.com/FrAquinasOP Yves R. Simon, A General Theory of Authority https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Authority-Yves-Simon/dp/0268010048 Charles De Koninck, On the Primacy of the Common Good: Against the Personalists https://emmilco.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/de-koninck-common-good.pdf

  • https://www.academia.edu

    It is often observed that the resurgence of virtue ethics in the latter half of the 20th century reintroduced formerly neglected insights into moral philosophy. But despite a few tentative attempts, those insights have not yet arrived on the scene of

  • Understanding the Authority of the Catholic Church

    Brother Lawrence returns with Fr. Mark-Mary after telling his story, and this time they talk about understanding the authority of the pope in the Church. Coming from an evangelical background actually helped Brother Lawrence understand how leaders can be broken. Nonetheless, when you find out about the sins of someone you look up to, that doesn’t invalidate the good you’ve experienced through them. God can use imperfect people to accomplish his work. In fact, there is no other way to do so because we are all imperfect. Pope Benedict XVI, in his book Call to Communion, said “The pope has always been both petros and skandalon.” The pope has always been the foundation stone of the Church (petros) and a stone that people trip over, a stumbling block (skandalon). Scandal has always plagued the Church, and this may be a stumbling block for some, but the Church has always stood tall in the midst of it all, because God can still accomplish his will through our frailty and despite our sins. MORE FROM ASCENSION Ascension’s main website: http://ascensionpress.com Ascension Media: https://media.ascensionpress.com SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AscensionPress/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/AscensionPress LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ascension-press Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/ascensionpress/ Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/c/ascensionpresents