The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority

The tension between the public and the authority has been prevalent among various societies. Specifically, people tend to trust authority on one hand but become skeptical on the other. They tend to have ambivalent stances toward the government, neither completely devoted to it nor absolutely distrusting it. The given prompt states that the welfare of a society is improved when the majority of people cast doubt on the authority. I mostly agree with this claim for two reasons. However, I do concede that in some cases trusting and supporting the leaders yields more benefits.

First of all, maintaining a skeptical position toward authority may sustain a ‘check and balance’ system. In other words, questioning authority may help the leaders proceed on a right track, which prevents despotism. Historically, blindly-devoted attitudes toward one’s authority had led nations to negative consequences. Adolf Hitler was able to seize absolute power in politics since the public uncritically supported him. He constructed his speech to appease the Germans’ plummeted esteems about their nations, which inveigled the general public to indiscriminately follow his policies. Eventually, this led Germany to cause World War II, which caused not only other European countries but also Germany to collapse. This example illustrates that doubting one’s authority is crucial to his or her nation’s prosperity. If one only follows decisions made by the authority with little to no consideration, the group is highly likely to end up with collapse or disintegration.

Secondly, casting doubt on authority is crucial for maximizing the satisfaction of the general public. If people almost always accept what their leaders do and the policies they impose, those leaders are likely to exploit that trait to satisfy their own interests, which hinders the group or the nation to fulfill the profit of the general public. Suppose that there is a company in which employees blindly follow the policies made by officers. If officers create a policy that removes the restriction to always check the flow of finances in the company, it will encourage them to commit embezzlement. If this problem becomes exacerbated, the company would be unable to reward who contributes the most to the company and only allow high-ranked officers to steal the company’s money. Eventually, this negative circumstance would only satisfy the interests of the specific group, hardly sustaining the general welfare and leading to the bankruptcy of the company. This example presents that questioning authority keeps leaders behaving properly, which contributes to the maintenance and even increase of general welfare.

However, taking a skeptical view of authority may lead to undesirable results. If people always distrust their leaders and do not follow their policies whatsoever, the group may not be operated. That is, blindly opposing authority may also result in the destruction of the well-being of one’s group. Suppose that people do not trust what politician states and merely disregard whatever they promulgate. In this case, the opinions of the public cannot be reflected in policymaking, which impedes the operation of a nation. Politics loses direction due to the lack of people’s interests and cannot be run properly in order to assuage the public’s dissatisfaction and work in accordance with their will. Hence, casting doubt on the authority to the extreme may also lead to the same consequence as when people blindly devote their support.

In conclusion, maintaining a skeptical perspective toward authority may assist the deviation of leaders to the wrong direction and contribute to the sustainment or increase of general welfare – the overall profit of the general public. However, the extreme case may backfire; always taking negative and disbelieving viewpoints to authority may impede the operation of the whole system. Therefore, it is optimal to balance questioning and supporting the authority.