For emergencies, a "Hear me now and believe me later" approach is acceptable.
Yes - but far more likely to be followed when the people being directed know their respectful questions are typically listened to answered respectfully. Then they know the authority is directing ... authoritatively ... based on a real emergency and a good understanding of what needs to be done.
The traditional view is that children owe their parents obedience not just because the parents are older and wiser but because the children are dependent. No emergency needs to be invoked. In our house we don't eat food X because it is against the family religion. We don't need to justify this restriction to our children, and in fact it cannot be logically justified. Why should some children not eat pork, others not eat beef, and others not eat meat at all for religious reasons or because their parents believe for non-religious reasons that eating meat is wrong? It's because the parents are putting the food on the table, for which the children should be grateful.
