Authority, in a democratic society, is granted to individuals by the people they are charged with serving. Perhaps then it seems obvious that the governed parties should have the right to question, critique and expel those who do not meet their needs. Authority is a privilege, not a right.

Contextualising this debate and thus defining what 'authority' even consists of can further illuminate why it is essential that, at the very least, people in any position of power deserve to be questioned. Politicians are just one example. If a governing party does not meet the promises laid out in their manifestos - their very reason for winning authority - the public will replace them at the next election. By contributing taxes, people have the right to not just question politicians, but oust them. This complicates, however, when we consider the most obvious example of an authority figure: parents.

Unlike politicians, parents cannot be replaced. There is no fund that offspring may contribute to in order to demand better care, as they instead take from their mothers, fathers and guardians while often only reciprocating with love, at least for a significant period of their young lives. It's hardly a relationship of balance. However, this does not negate the fact that children and teenagers are entitled to question their caregivers if they do not feel that they are being treated adequately. In fact, they should question their parents and guardians in order to understand why they may make certain unpopular decisions. A child should question why they are not allowed to eat sweets for breakfast, lunch and dinner so as to learn the benefits of a balanced diet and lifestyle. A teenager should question why they aren't allowed to experiment with dangerous substances or drink to excess so as to learn the dangers of addiction. In this instance, questioning authority does not mean rebelling against it.

Ultimately, authority is not something that is granted or accepted lightly. People who take this responsibility have a duty to the safety and dignity of their dependents, and their own consciences for the decisions they make in their stead. The least they can do, therefore, is be held accountable.

Of course. This is more or less self explanatory, everyone should agree with this.

Who are these 4% of people who strongly disagree? I'm baffled! I'd LIKE to come up with a steelman argument, but I just can't think of one.

I suppose a society that doesn't question authority could theoretically get more done? idk man.

All authority should be questioned to the extent that doubt and questioning are impetus for scientific and intellectual progress. However, certain authorities have already substantiated themselves as scientific facts so questioning them is no longer meaningful.

It is true that doubt has been the very engine of intellectual progress — Galileo questioned Aristotelian physics by demonstrating that the gravitational acceleration is independent of mass; Copernicus questioned the age-old belief of geocentrism by proving that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around. Questioning and doubt on Newtonian classical physics led to the two most significant theories upon which modern physics is built: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The history of science alone is one of constant renewal, challenging, progress, and change.

The same may be said for other disciplines of knowledge. Historiography used to designate the Medieval Age as the "dark ages", yet this label has been abandoned as historians begin to discover that the Medieval Age is in fact a period characterized by great intellectual, cultural, and scientific burgeoning. The challenge of religious authority likewise led us to great thinkers during the Enlightenment. Questioning is a virtue — it symbolizes our curiosity and our willingness to learn more.

However, one must note that not all authority deserves to be challenged, especially certain overwhelmingly well-substantiated facts or principles of reasoning. For example, axioms in mathematics are universally accepted; nobody doubts Peano's axioms about natural numbers or Euclid's axioms about geometry. These fundamental principles are the very basis of mathematics as a whole, so it is, at this point, pointless to challenge. Certainly scientific facts likewise enjoy the same status: they are so well-grounded that they are universally accepted as facts. No chemist doubts the atomic theory, nor any biologist the theory of evolution. These are foundational theories.

TL;DR: Authority is important, but abuse of power is also common and individuals must assess the values of an authority figure against their own conscience

1. Abuse of power is a real danger when people are in positions of authority over others for two main reasons:

• Research suggests that giving someone power reveals their true nature, giving them the freedom to behave in a way that aligns with their values. Furthermore, some people have a particularly high ‘need for power’, which in many cases could be rooted in a desire to control others, or to further a wider cause which is immoral.

• Human beings have a tendency to trust and obey authority. The disturbing findings of the Milgram experiment, which found that people were willing to harm others if ordered, made this very clear.

2. Although following authority is important for a functioning, harmonious society, we are always responsible for our choices as individuals, so the values of authority figures must be constantly under scrutiny. Authority figures may not have our interests or the interests of others in mind, and blindly accepting an authority figure is dangerous.

Going off of Laura's point, the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment brought out each participant's inherent characteristics. These college students were placed either as prisoners and guards... the guards, even though were happy go-lucky college boys, turned into degrading and abusive authority figures when granted power over the "prisoners." When one prisoner shot back saying "this is just an experiment, calm down," one guard said he knew nothing of this "experiment." Many of these participants experienced PTSD and went to trauma therapy, both guards and prisoners, either scared of what was done to them or who they became.