What is the difference between theoretical and practical authority?

The first type of authority is theoretical authority - this is authority in the sense of someone being an expert in something and from whom we can gain knowledge from, because we trust them and their source of knowledge. For instance, we could ask an engineer if we want to build a bridge, as they know how to build a bridge that won't collapse.

A second type of authority is practical authority - this is in the sense of someone being an 'authority figure'. An authority can get us to act in particular ways, simply because they have power. However, just having power is not enough to also have authority.

There are two types of practical authority - one being in the descriptive sense: this means a state has authority if it maintains public order and makes laws that are generally obeyed by its citizens. Thus, this type of authority imposes laws successfully - authority goes beyond power when it can secure public order, which also depends in part, on people respecting the law. In a state where the law is often broken, but its police force is still used to punish its law-breakers i.e. the citizens and state are in conflict, the state no longer has authority.

Explain normative authority. What does it add to authority in the descriptive sense?

Normative authority says that a state has practical authority if its authority in the descriptive sense is legitimate. Hobbes argued that any state with authority in the descriptive sense is legitimate, so there is no real distinction, however, other philosophers believed that the descriptive sense of practical authority is too weak and doesn't distinguish between mere power and genuine authority. They argue that a state only has authority of any kind if the citizens obey the law because they believe a state has authority in the normative sense, i.e. if the state is legitimate. A state in which the citizens obey the law because they're too scared to break it does not have authority, only power. For descriptive authority, the citizens must believe that the state is legitimate, whereas for normative authority, the state must actually be legitimate.

Discuss the relations between power, authority and legitimacy.



Explain Plato's analogy of the beast.

Plato used the analogy of a beast to illustrate how, although democracy is based on the freedom to do what you want, this freedom can be harmful if you don't know what is good for you. He first compares people in a democracy to a powerful beast, and compares their rulers to the beasts tamer. The rulers govern by giving people what they want, as if they don't they will be voted out of government, but this misses the point of what is good for the state as a whole.  Plato says that democracy is really rule by ignorance, because neither the politicians nor the citizens who have elected them, know what's beneficial for the state.

Discuss Plato's objection to the view that legitimacy depends upon popular approval.

Plato argued that legitimate practical authority is founded on theoretical authority (expertise), as opposed to consent or providing important benefits. He explained this by comparing politics with skills - for example, if you want to build a bridge, you ask an expert (an engineer) for advice on how to do it, also if you are ill, you consult a qualified doctor, not just any person. Likewise, a state is legitimate only if those in power have knowledge to rule and skill in ruling, thus popular approval is irrelevant.

He argued that democracy is based on the freedom to do what you want, but if the people don't know what's good for them, then this could be harmful on society as a whole. Plato believed that a state which is governed by what the voters want, rather than what is good for the state, is ruled by ignorance. A portrayal of this is in general elections, whereby the way many people vote is determined by many different desires and prejudices, furthermore it's important to consider how many voters actually bother to read party manifestos, or research the impact of policies? This exemplifies potential incompetence and irrationality that people often have, plus how rare it is for people to think about what is good for the people as a whole, rather than being driven by selfishness. Therefore, if politicians what they want, they would not be doing what's best for the state. What would be best is to have politicians with skills, knowledge and insightful judgement; they need to understand economics, psychology, to have excellent people skills, a large capacity for work, a good memory, and many more things. We won't get the best politicians by letting incompetent and irrational people vote, we'll only get politicians who are willing to give the people what they want. Plato believed that because people don't know much about what is good for society as a whole, and people are mostly selfish, politicians giving people what they want through democracy won't be governing what is best for the state.