So, back to our discussion on morality:
Why is moral authority so universally appealing?
For one thing, moral authority is just so easy to grab at...and then hold on to. In fact, often, it’s something that is put right into your hand. Institutions use it and do this all the time.
It works because it is tangible—defined, understandable.
It’s systemic—using the powers of critical mass to achieve its goals by simply being overwhelming.
It objectifies things, including people.
It’s binary—keeps things simple and tries to frame things in terms of good and evil.
It doesn’t really require anything of you, other than loyalty (or even just tacit consent).
In that way, it fosters a false contentment and disengagement—a kind of passivity because it lets other people (the authoritative ones) do the work.
So, why is moral authority appealing? Too often, it is effectively a cheap means to a desired end (even if it is expensive).
At this point, it might be helpful to add that morality, in and of itself, is likely actually amoral. Because it is a mechanism, it simply functions. The content of morality is highly fluid across time, even if it does tend to revolve around a fairly small set of common things—things often way more designed to manage power than to manage the content itself. Isn't that why so many who claim authoritative mantras don't even try to live up to them personally—is that why 'righteous indignation' is so necessary?
Is morality, then, good or bad? Does it become one or the other only when moral authority is involved? When is authority good (we know when it's bad)?
All to say, while the answers to these questions remain open (like all good questions seem to), the appetite we have for such things seems pretty high because moral authority is SO appealing.
