When we reach a point in an argument where we have no expertise, we call upon an authority. If that authority isn’t really an authority, the argument becomes fallacious. This fallacy is called appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam.
What does “authority that isn’t really an authority mean? Well, look at it this way. You wouldn’t ask Hitler for advice on improving diversity. Or, you wouldn’t ask a third world country to lecture you on space programs. The authority must be connected with the field in question.
Example 1: Kylie Jenner believes the Earth is flat. It must be so.
Example 2: I’m just a cop mam, I’m doing what I’m told. You know, orders are orders.
Example 3: I don’t see anything wrong with drinking these 4 bottles of soda, the manufacturers say it’s healthy.
In Example 1, the speaker is appealing to an authority that has no relevant expertise for the argument. Even though some don’t consider Kylie Jenner as an authority, it’s obvious that the speaker considers her as an authority. Either Way, Kylie Jenner isn’t the appropriate authority to call upon when discussing the shape of the earth.
This is one form of the appeal to authority fallacy. Using a person, which you consider an authority to support your argument, even though the person is not an authority in the field. If you want to discuss the shape of the Earth (common knowledge) at least use a credible physicist as an authority.
Example 2 is a different kind of an appeal to authority. The speaker is using an unnamed (unidentified) authority. This is the most dangerous appeal to authority because it can lead to justifying some immoral actions. Like Mike Pence, the Vice President of Donald Trump justifies his questionable decisions with the Bible.
The cop is evidently doing something that he considers unreasonable. But even though he thinks his actions are unreasonable he justifies them with the chain of command. Of course, we want the police to obey commands, but we also want them to serve the people. Obedience doesn’t mean stupidity, commands should be understood and questioned.
Example 3 represents an appeal to a biased authority. In some situations, the authority has relevant expertise for the argument but partial for one side of the argument. Would you trust your doctor if he is on a commission for the drugs he is prescribing? It is important authorities to be impartial in the field in question.
The speaker comes to the conclusion that a bottle of soda which is rich with sugar isn’t bad. He supports his conclusion using the manufacturer that made the product. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the manufacturer will profit more if the product is marketed as healthy. That’s why nutrition labels exist, to stop this bias.
Problems with appeal to authority
Fully understanding this fallacy requires a closer look in its origin.
Is using authorities a good support at all?
It’s obvious that using false authorities cannot be a premise for a conclusion in any argument. But what about credible authorities that are not biased? A common remark to our misguided obedience is: “Well, if X told you to jump out of a bridge, will you do it?”.
Well, that remark critiques our blind appeal to authorities. Even if the authority used in an argument doesn’t cause a fallacy, it’s still not a strong enough of a premise.
Example 4:
“Evolution is how we came to exist, we and monkeys share ancestors, Darwin says so, he is the one that came up with the theory of evolution.”
Now, Example 4 is not a fallacy in any way. Darwin is an authority that we can use when we are talking on evolution. But is this really an argument that can convince someone? Is this an argument that is necessarily true?
The problem arises because the argument has a built-in assumption that authorities can justify action or be the proof for something true. It’s not enough to call upon an authority, we have to understand what the authority is saying.
However, sometimes we must use authorities, there’s no other way to be honest. We don’t have to go around the planet to prove that it’s round, we take the scientists’ word to be true. The point is, don’t be afraid to use authorities, just make sure to take everything with caution and critique.
Justifying actions with authorities
The real danger with the appeal to authority fallacy comes from justifying the morality of an action with authorities. Just think about the Holocaust, Hitler didn’t execute Jewish people personally, he had soldiers do it. In fact, camps were very organized and every worker had a role. So, can we say those workers were just following orders?
Clearly, this fallacy not only causes a difficulty in an argument but it also has real-life implications that unfortunately are sometimes really dangerous. Throughout world history, we can find many examples of individuals using authorities to justify their actions.
In those cases, do we blame the authorities or the individual? Who is at fault? Most judicial systems hold responsible both authorities and individuals, the first to a higher degree. Nevertheless, even if some should follow orders, they are individuals first; some orders should not be followed.
In conclusion, avoid using authorities as support in arguments, and never use authorities to justify your actions. Appealing to authority cannot be escaped always; it’s just the way our knowledge is built.