Mention a common critique Wolff explores—that pure utilitarianism might allow for the sacrifice of innocent individuals for the "greater good". 5. Conclusion
Political philosophy often begins with two central questions: "who gets what?" and "says who?".
If you'd prefer a different focus, you can use these themes from Jonathan Wolff's work : An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff Introduction to Political Philosophy- Jonathan ...
Summarize that while the state's legitimacy is difficult to prove through absolute consent, the alternative (the State of Nature) is generally seen as a condition where humans cannot truly thrive.
Compare the "State of Nature" theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Does Wolff’s analysis suggest we have a moral obligation to obey the state? 1. Introduction If you'd prefer a different focus, you can
Explain how both thinkers use the concept of a social contract—a voluntary agreement among individuals to create a sovereign power.
Briefly touch upon the utilitarian argument mentioned by Wolff: the state is justified because it promotes the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" more effectively than anarchy. Contrast this with Locke’s view
Contrast this with Locke’s view, where a moral law exists even without a government, but "inconveniences" (like the lack of an impartial judge) eventually make the State of Nature untenable. 3. Justifying the State