Governments have been held to moral standards and the most extreme example of this is the holocaust and all the nazi soldiers that participated in it. The nazi regime under Hitler was defeated and a new government was established because the old one was immoral. Does this mean that the “government” was immoral or was it just the men that were a part of it? I think that sometimes the thoughts can be interchangeable. The pure idea of communism was actually a pretty good proposition for government but it has been distorted by most of the leaders that use it, turning there nations into poverty stricken traps for their inhabitants. The big question is, is government an inanimant object, or the people that represent it?
I think it is NEARLY impossible morality to be attached to a government, reason being that we all give up rights to the government for them to be able to keep order and peace. To sum it up, attaching morality to the government would constrict it’s ability to carry out the punishments necessary to deter people from taking back the rights that they gave up according to the social contract
On my interpretation of Hobbes, your last sentence perfectly sums up his view on the applicability of moral standards to the sovereign.
I do like how you argue that constricting government on judging it morally would keep it from carrying out punishments needed for all people under its power.
Wouldn’t it be a moral decision for the government to punish certain people for certain actions?
“The big question is, is government an inanimant object, or the people that represent it?”
This question is great, the government is more like an inanimate object that is made up of citizens still under social contract. The government as a whole with its checks and balances has the right to act above the contract but the individual citizen are still to abide by it.