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
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, 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 Introduction to Political Philosophy- Jonathan ...
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
Explain how both thinkers use the concept of a social contract—a voluntary agreement among individuals to create a sovereign power. If you'd prefer a different focus, you can
Mention a common critique Wolff explores—that pure utilitarianism might allow for the sacrifice of innocent individuals for the "greater good". 5. Conclusion
Use Wolff’s analysis to highlight the problem of political obligation . Do we actually consent? Wolff discusses "tacit consent" (consenting by staying in a country) and "hypothetical consent" (what we would do if we were rational), noting that both are philosophically controversial. 4. The Utilitarian Alternative Justifying the State Compare the "State of Nature"
Political philosophy often begins with two central questions: "who gets what?" and "says who?".