There is no doubt an urge for criticism of Hegel's state, which rises up from within a member of present day western civilization which demands an explanation for such an object within society. The dominant argument focuses on what appears to be a lack of justification for Hegel's necessary movement from morality to ethical life as one's individuality is lost in a group mentality. An underlying to force may exist in this argument with relation to Hegel's abstinence from the explicit use of God as the universal will. Would one be less compelled to draws arms if Hegel had associated God with the State? I also lay in disagreement with Hegel, but for more basic reasons; the state is neither the universal nor infinite concrete freedom. However, Hegel does offer anyone the allowance for the understanding of man's dialectical movement towards a state, the universal, and an ethical life while still leaving room for individual freedom within ethical life.
From a western perspective, the movement from morality to ethical life is in actuality a self-delusional movement away from oneself. Within morality, one is entirely focused inward towards themselves but far enough along the movement to have experiences with other people. Here the subjective will takes control and develops its inner life, on the lines with a modern day conception of what it means to be a free individual. But for Hegel morality, or subjectivity, is not enough as a higher form lies further, within ethical life, the Idea of freedom (p105 142). The subjective will for the good, conscience, self-consciousness, while the will remains the master of itself, lays a firm foundation for opposition, but they also are catalysts which force one through the dialectical movement. .
In morality, the individual will reflects inward towards itself in order that it may become aware of itself (p75 105). It is only after the will's reflection, that it becomes the subject; "the subjective will, directly aware of itself- (p76 108).