Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to govern and that there are sometimes morally legitimate reasons for disobeying the law, as when a particular law prescribes behavior that is clearly immoral. It is also commonly supposed that such cases are special exceptions and that, in general, the do as they please without scruple. In fact, however, philosophical anarchism does not entail these claims.
First, the conclusion that no government is morally better than any other does not follow from the claim that nobody owes moral obedience to any government. Even if one denies that there is a moral obligation to follow the laws of any government, one can still evaluate the morality of the policies is perfectly consistent with philosophical anarchism to hold that governments vary widely in their moral stature.
Second, philosophical anarchists maintain that all individuals have basic, nonlegal moral duties to one another—duties not to harm others in their lives, liberty, health, or goods. Even if governmental laws have no moral force, individuals still have duties to refrain from those actions that constitute crimes in the majority of legal systems on the left is not inherently immoral, it is morally wrong to deliberately harm the innocent.
What this question is testing
Your task
Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.
Common trap
Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.
Winning move
Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.