Have I proven that a perfectly moral society is anarchism?
I’ve been thinking about the relationship between morality, the state, and what an “ideal” society would look like. I want to run this argument by philosophers to see if there are any logical holes I’m missing.
My Argument
Definition of morality: Not causing harm to other humans.
Definition of the state: An institution that exists to punish those who violate morality (i.e., those who cause harm).
The Logic
1. The purpose of the state: The state exists because people cause harm to each other. It punishes violators to protect society.
2. The ideal moral society: An “ideal” society would be one where everyone acts morally — meaning no one causes harm to others (morality = 1.0).
3. Logical consequence: If no one causes harm → there are no violators to punish → the state has no function.
4. Coordination without the state: In such a society, people would:
• Cooperate voluntarily (no coercion needed)
• Engage honestly in markets (no fraud)
• Keep contracts voluntarily (no courts needed)
• Coordinate through voluntary exchange and mutual aid
The state isn’t needed for this.
5. Final conclusion: In an ideally moral society, the state logically cannot exist. What remains is voluntary coordination through markets and cooperation.
6. What is this? The absence of the state = anarchism.
My Claim
Therefore, the most moral society possible (logically speaking) = anarchism.
Important clarification
This is NOT an argument that anarchism is the path to morality. This is an argument about what the end state of a maximally moral society would look like — like the summit of a mountain isn’t the path up the mountain, but rather where you end up at the peak.
Questions for you guys:
Is the logic here sound?