This morning I am thinking about two ethics — humanistic and authoritarian. By definition, the criteria for each are fundamentally different. For example, in authoritarian ethics an ‘authority’ states what is good for me-you-us and provides us the laws and norms of conduct. In humanistic ethics humans themselves are both the norm and law giver and the subject of the norms and laws.
Pause. It might be helpful to clarify my understanding of the concept of authority. The challenge for me is to discern what ‘kind’ of authority exists. Consider that there are two types of authority — rational and irrational. ‘Rational’ authority is rooted in ‘competence.’ For example, the person whose authority is respected functions competently in the task entrusted to him/her. This person does not need to intimidate others with his/her authority nor does this person need to seek to be admired by those affected by his/her authority [as long as and to the extent to which this person is competently helping and serving others rather than exploiting others].
Moreover, rational authority insists upon and requires constant scrutiny and criticism of those who are subjected to the authority. This authority, by its nature, is temporary; part of its acceptance is dependent upon the ‘performance’ of the one in authority and part of it is ‘role-defined’ — it is not ‘person-defined’ [the soldier salutes the ‘role’ not the ‘person’ — some officers forget this].
The root of “Irrational’ authority always involves ‘power over others.’ This power can be physical, intellectual, emotional or spiritual in nature. People who submit to this power experience anxiety, if not fear, and powerlessness, if not helplessness, in response to this authority. The bookends of this type of authority are coercion and fear (actual or implied). Scrutiny and criticism are forbidden.
Rational authority is also rooted in the equality of both the ‘authority’ and the ‘subject,’ which differ with respect to the degree of knowledge or skill in a specific field [think, ‘teacher’ and ‘student’]. On the other hand, irrational authority is rooted in inequality [physical, intellectual, emotional and/or spiritual]. [Note: given this, humanistic ethics is NOT incompatible with rational ethics]
Authoritarian ethics can be distinguished from humanistic ethics by the following criteria, one ‘formal’ and the other ‘material.’ Formally, authoritarian ethics denies one’s capacity to know what is good or bad; the authoritarian norm giver defines what is good and bad; this authority is always seen as transcending the individual. This system is not rooted in reason and knowledge but in awe/fear of the authority; it is also rooted in the receiver’s feeling of weakness/powerlessness and dependency needs. The authority’s decisions/actions can and must not be questioned.
Materially [i.e. according to content] authoritarian ethics answers the question of what is good or bad and does so primarily in terms of the interests of the authority; the interests of the receiver do not matter. Even though it is exploitative, the receiver may derive considerable benefits — physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual — from it. If you, the receiver, are ‘good’ you will be rewarded and if you are ‘bad’ you will be punished.
Searcher-Seeker 