BARBARA CHYROWICZ, Authority and Censure: Contestation, Opposition and Rebellion

SUMMARY

Today’s fascination with human freedom and the belief that acting in accordance with one’s own conscience is the basis of moral identity diminish the role of moral authority and often reject it unjustifiably. While following the opinion of an authority uncritically is a mistake, it is also wrong to reject an authority’s judgments out of hand in the name of one’s right to pursue one’s own aims. No one should reject authority a priori, and we should ask whether the assertions of those who claim the right to act independently actually help people to achieve moral maturity. Authorities are needed, and the moral experience that we acquire over the years does not make us always and everywhere certain of what to do, nor ensure that our moral intuitions are always correct. It is appropriate to look to an authority wiser than we, at least in certain matters, for help in making a decision. Human authority is not absolute, so its acceptance will always be relative. Between mindless obedience to authority and its rejection are located the attitudes of ‘contestation’ and ‘opposition.’ Both of these attitudes call into question the regulations issued by an authority, which may prove inadequate when confronted by changing reality. They both question any judgment of authority that seems insufficiently justified. Yet while contestation involves questioning the judgments of an authority, opposition includes formulating judgments that attack or deny the position of the authority as such. Opposition does not, however, always involve a complete rejection of authority; one may disagree with a given opinion while still recognizing the authority and acknowledging that some of its other judgments are correct. Thus opposition to the dictates of an authority is not always a destructive action. ‘Rebellion,’ though, involves a firm rejection of authority.