The fallacy of taking permission from an irrelevant authority
Some of the arguments reveal about a confusion in the minds of people related with 'Independence of Authority ' ?
Examine this :--
Can the seal on overboard valve be broken merely by involving Commercial Department of the company ??
To Put this question more simply, can any operation which is doubted to be wrongful, be executed by merely involving a third party into the matter ??
Should the Iran-'Desh Shanti' like situation arise, what are the chances that the Master will be able to secure an IMMEDIATE relief for himself by pointing to the authorities that he had "involved commercial department into the affairs" ?
Can the master secure a LONG TIME relief either, on the grounds of having "involved" /"taken permission" of a third party ("the commercial department" ) ??
Fundamentally, the questions reflect a confusion,a fallacy, which pertains to the INDEPENDENCE OF AUTHORITY of the master.
The third party, "the commercial department" in this case, can always wash its hands off by saying that we just said yes to what they wanted to hear from us, but we dont know, and neither can we be the right authority to know or to judge the right situation. So WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE WHAT THAT MASTER HAS DONE .
Technically, this defence of the third party will be accepted by law courts, as , naturally no commercial department of any company is sitting out their on-scene, at sea, to judge what is the real situation. The third party will therefore use this as a defence argument to protect itself, and to retrieve back the affirmative which it might itself have issued, only to exploit the IGNORANCE of master about INDEPENDENCE OF HIS AUTHORITY .
In theory, where there exist a relationship of INDEPENDENCE FROM EACH OTHER's AUTHORITY , try NOT to confuse out your wrongful actions by seeking permission from an irrelevant authority. They will never be able to defend you. Rather, they may seek to exploit your position of ignorance about your own authority .