Ethics & Morality Quote by Fred Woodworth

Woodworth’s line is a neat philosophical trap: whichever way you answer, the state looks redundant at best and compromised at worst. It works because it refuses the comforting middle ground where government is imagined as a neutral machine that simply “manages” society. Instead, it forces a blunt question about moral anthropology: what are people like when no one’s watching?

The first clause needles the classic justification for authority. If humans are “fundamentally good,” then coercive structures start to look like training wheels left on an adult bike. Law becomes an insult to virtue. The second clause is the sharper knife. If humans are “fundamentally bad,” then the usual fallback argument - that we need government to restrain our worst impulses - collapses under its own logic. Who staffs the restraining apparatus? The same flawed creatures. Power doesn’t cleanse; it concentrates.

The subtext is anti-romantic about institutions. It’s not saying “no rules ever.” It’s saying the moral character of the governed can’t be magically improved by elevating some of them into governors. That’s a critique aimed at both utopianism (trust people entirely) and technocracy (trust systems to correct people). Contextually, it sits comfortably in libertarian/anarchist skepticism of the state: a reminder that legitimacy isn’t a bonus you get from a title or a badge. If you want government, Woodworth implies, you need a better argument than “people are good” or “people are bad.” You need an account of incentives, limits, and accountability that doesn’t rely on moral alchemy.