Final answer:
The argument in question pertains to social contract theory, which is a type of political and ethical philosophy that posits an unwritten contract exists between the government and citizens where people agree to follow laws in exchange for societal benefits.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument that individuals are obligated to help support society even if there are individual parts they don't like because they benefit from living in a society is based on social contract theory. This ethical framework suggests that the basis of authority of the government and the duties of the citizens towards the state is a social contract, where individuals consent, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler (or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights.
The social contract is indeed an unwritten and inherited understanding that requires not breaking laws or moral codes in exchange for security, education, and other necessities provided by society. It also encompasses the collective action problem and the free rider issue where everyone benefits from public goods like roads or policing even if not everyone contributes equally to their provision.
Governments use various policies, including those inspired by utilitarian principles, to balance individual freedom with societal welfare, as exemplified in the taxation system to fund public goods that benefit all. Nonetheless, there is always a tension between the liberty and order which the social contract aims to balance.