Argument from moral authority

You argue that a claim about what ought to be done should be accepted because of who says so, and the person named is someone whose business it is to say what is right — a religious leader, a court, an elder. The argument works because it is their standing to judge, not their information, that is meant to settle the matter. It can be attacked by refusing to recognise that standing, since the argument reaches only those who do.

Example

According to the pope, rich countries ought to take in more refugees

Standardised form

“Rich countries ought to take in more refugees” (q) is acceptable (A) because “rich countries ought to take in more refugees” (q) is said by the pope (Z).

Transformations applied: “because” inserted; the source phrase “according to the pope” transposed into the premise; the claim’s acceptability made explicit as the conclusion-predicate.

Classification

The conclusion is referred to as a whole in the premise, so the argument form is delta (q is A because q is Z).

The premise attributes the conclusion to a third party, so the argument substance is III.

The keyword MORALLY AUTHORITATIVE describes the relationship between predicates Z and A. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being said by the pope (Z) is MORALLY AUTHORITATIVE for being acceptable (A)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argument from expert opinion — The source is credited with knowing the subject rather than with standing to judge it. EPISTEMICALLY AUTHORITATIVE
• Argument from testimony — The source is credited with having been in a position to see. TESTIMONIALLY AUTHORITATIVE
• Argumentum ad populum — Authority is quantitative: how many say it, not who. POPULARLY AUTHORITATIVE
• Ethotic argument — The arguer offers their own standing rather than a third party’s. I

Source

Invented example.

Notes

See the note on the argument from expert opinion.