Why do we do what a police officer tells us to do? Why should we do what a police officer tells us?
I realized I don't have a satisfactory answer to this after engaging in a related conversation about parental authority.
Do we follow the police officer out of fear that she will harm us? Or because we agreed to follow her? But surely we did not agree to follow her without question, so are we simply listening to her suggestions? In which case, does she really have any authority?
There are at least three basic answers that could be given to the question of where authority comes from.
The simplest one is the belief that right makes might. In other words, authority is simply the power to coerce action. And there's nothing else necessary or proper to distinguish authority (i.e., there's no "rightful" authorities -- just people or groups powerful enough to coerce behavior).
The second answer which may or may not be a variant on the first is that authority is socially deemed, viz., that what society decides is rightful is legitimate authority and any other use of force is wrong. The evolution from one to two is a quick way to summarize social contract theory. Such a theory would be associated with Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, and Rosseau.
The third answer is that there is some sort of natural authority and the task is to recognize this. This answer can really have two directions. One is that there is a biological pattern to the way our species is organized and that this indicates how authority works. You can see this model of description in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Books 8 and 9 and in his Politics. You can also find it in Hegel.
The second variant on the third answer would be that God or Nature has ordained some sport of power structure and appointed certain people to be in certain places. You could then merge it back with the first variant by claiming it is self-evident or keep it separate by making it the dictate of reason (Kant) or divine revelation (one of the many things called "divine command theory") or the Forms (Plato).
I would like to focus on the third one's first variant, what I've called here natural authority. Hegel has an interesting critique of social contract theories -- which is this: they depend on a bizarre myth. The myth being that there was a "state of nature" where we were all beating each other senseless until we realized not beating each other senseless was a better social organization. Turns out, that's not the experience of most of us.
Instead, we are raised in families where we are nurtured and love -- imperfectly and in flawed ways but still so (I hope dinner was not a fight to get enough scraps of left overs until you are finally strong enough to slay you father Chronos). So oddly, the state of nature is that we grow up in families where we are protected. According to Aristotle, it is natural for children to love and accept the authority of their parents in that circumstance, and it is natural for there to be love between parent and child.
One nice thing in the Hegelian variant of this answer is that we don't have to do exactly what we see in nature. There's no need for us to accept there should be an alpha-ape with a giant harem who beats down everyone else. Instead, we can think about biological realities and work on creating social realities that maximize the flourishing of our families. I think one component is that it's sensible for there to be de minimis a structure such that parents have authority over their children.
Good question.
In a civil society, it is wise to remain calm and cooperative before the police, because confrontation will only cause the police to escalate force. In extreme situations, where police snipers are deployed, one is much safer if he does not carry a weapon. The best place to challenge the police is the court.
It is very annoying to be stopped by a speed cop, but we do not fight him because we know that he has the overwhelming forces of the State at his back.
Russell, Bertrand. An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish. 1943
The relevant question is not why people do follow police officers' instructions out of this or that motive, but why they should or should not do so. Since a police officer is supposed to enforce the law, let's assume that he actually wants to do that. The question then is what kinds of laws or constitutional regime should people be willing to follow? The answer is that provided laws are not set up in such a way as to prevent correction of errors in our institutions, you should follow them:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=291145
For example, if freedom of speech was revoked you would have the right to break that law since it would prevent people from criticising institutions. If the police are trying to enforce such a bad law then the only reason to go along with them is prudence, i.e. - because they might beat the shit out of you.
Parenting is a different situation. In a country with millions of people you can't reasonably expect to be able to get unanimous consent to every law. It is possible for a parent and child to reach agreement when they have a dispute. This is a dispute between two people, both of whom want the child to acquire the knowledge necessary for the child to survive and thrive without the parent. The standard excuse for not resolving parenting disputes in that way is that children are irremediably ignorant. The same parents then go on to send their children to school, which is odd behaviour if the children really are irremediably ignorant. For more discussion of this issue see
http://fallibleideas.com/avoiding-coercion
This is an interesting question and the phenomenon can be witnessed in TEDTalks. I believe that this question can simply be answered by saying that it is down to what is known as Conformity
Take a look at the links I provide in this answer and look at the conformity studies like the Milgram Experiment and the works of Dr Phil Zimbardo with his Stanford Prison Experiment
Stanley Milgram tested earlier conformity studies by Solomon Asch to see what extent the experiment can reach.
It seems that even though there are a few who are an exception, there are those with high moral standards who can be swayed into doing something instructed by someone else, even if the instruction is generally immoral. Especially when their actions are "justified" by someone in authority or seem to have more knowledge of the situation.
There seems to be a fine line which can be very blurry to a degree. For a rather pessimistic view on society have a look at this article.
