209. Consider the following passages

PDF Version of this Document

Consider the following passages:

"The authority relation is . . . one of inequality, the [bearer of] authority being the superior, and those subject to authority being the inferiors" (The Nature and Limits of Authority: 15).

"The general justification of epistemic authority is based on the fact that people are unequal in ability, some being more capable intellectually than others, the fact that some people know more than others, the fact that some data are available only to certain persons who are appropriately located in space and time, and the fact that there is so much that can be known and that no one can know it all. . . .The bearer of authority serves either as a guide or as a source for the person subject to epistemic authority who turns to the authority for information, guidance, or advice and who takes advantage of the bearer's superior knowledge" (38).

"The justification of Y's belief [sc. on the basis of authorities] is the advantage that Y gains by believing those who have superior knowledge" (39).

"X is a de facto competence authority for Y if, in some field R, Y is inferior in skill to X and Y either imitates X in R or does in R as X tells Y to do (though such telling is not to be construed as commanding)" (43).

"A command is an order from a superior to an inferior in the context and realm of the command. An inferior cannot appropriately command a superior, nor can an equal appropriately command an equal" (65).

"The family is the social unit into which one is born. A natural relation of dependence, and so of inferior to superior, exists between children and parents. The executive authority of parents can be called parental . . . authority" (68).

"Inequalities of mind, body, talents, and drive give rise to authority, together with the needs of all individuals and the necessity of common action to achieve certain ends" (95).

"Competence authority and epistemic authority are justified because of real differences between the skills and knowledge in some and the absence of such skills and knowledge in others. To deny this difference is to limit the possibilities of the less skillful to learn what will benefit them" (287).

July 1996