Imperium Anglorum wrote:Then provide a competing moral framework to the subject of government in a state of nature. But it's relatively irrelevant, as most philosophies agree with me. Utilitarianism says we ought have an obligation to help the worst off in society as well, since that increases the general utility and not doing so is your fault (no action-inaction distinction). So you have a moral obligation to help others, which is best done via government, so you have a obligation to make that government. Existentialism would tell you (at least in the mind of Sartre), that people ought reflect over their own actions. It's quite likely that the benefits from government would allow people to more effectively pursue authenticity, and therefore, the creation of some government ought be done.
OOC: Under a framework that values human dignity it is conceivable to argue that the use of a government to enforce or legislate morality robs humans of their uniqueness as moral actors. Therefore, the very existence of a government that tries to impose a moral goal is oppressive, as it takes away human freedom and dignity. (See authors, philosophers, and scholars such as Peter D. Hershock, Alenka Zupanĉiĉ, and Paul C. Santilli. Santilli in particular argues that questions of morality must be addressed in immediacy by individuals and not by a more distant government entity.)
