This is pretty long and unwieldy (I'll try to cut it down into one sentence) but does it make sense?
Since individuals are shaped by their historical and societal context, the government has the power to form and influence them. The government’s primary obligation is then to create moral individuals; it exists to be of maximum benefit to the citizen, and this is most successful (ie, citizen’s life is most enjoyable and productive—I’ll make this more eloquent later) when the citizen is surrounded by and interacts exclusively with moral individuals (I’ll define morality in the intro too).
I'll also talk about how the government should go about doing this, but I wasn't sure whether or not to put it directly in the thesis.
Does the government have an agency that the individual lacks. Are they real? Aren't they also governed by influences. The best way to achieve the end you want is to kill off the immoral people. Think French Revolution!
ReplyDeleteI like this a lot!! My mom actually wrote like half a book on basically the same thing :P
ReplyDeleteHow much should government be stepping in to create these moral individuals? Should they take kids away from their parents, make reeducation camps, ect? What are the limits?
Can sometimes interacting with immoral individuals be helpful, to teach us perspective?
How do you define successful? Like the classic happy vs enlightened question...
Does gvt exist to be of maximum benefit to all citizens, or in particular the least advantaged (Rawls)?
I think this is going to turn out really well!!