Final answer:
A. Civil order likely requires some form of government intervention, as history and political theory suggest that individual conscience alone is insufficient to maintain stability and law.
Step-by-step explanation:
Whether civil order could be maintained if every individual followed their own conscience is a complex question that touches on the nature of government's role in society.
If we consider the question from a Lockean perspective, which suggests that government must enforce natural law for the good of the community, there is an implication that without some form of government people may act in ways that are not conducive to the overall well-being of society.
In Locke's view, the government exists to serve the interests of its citizens and uphold the general will, ensuring stability and social order.
On the other hand, the exercise of individual conscience without any form of governance might align with an anarchist perspective, but most political theories, including those expressed in the Federalist papers by James Madison, argue that governments are necessary to manage the inherent conflicts among people.
Given human nature and the potential for selfishness and conflict over resources, as posited by Karl Marx, government intervention is necessary to ensure law and order are maintained.
Therefore, the role of government should be to protect people from conflicts and provide a system of laws that enables civil society to function.
Historically and theoretically, the question hints at the balance between preserving civil liberties and maintaining civil order.
The importance of civic virtues and the exercise of self-restraint, as advocated by George Mason, are essential in a society where government's role is minimized.
However, without at least some government oversight and structure, it is unlikely that civil order would prevail solely by individuals acting on conscience alone.