Morals determine higher social great. The purpose of rules is conserving greater cultural good. With this being said, placing morality in legal decisions brings out a greater social very good as a whole. Critical agreement about what is negative and precisely what is good (morality) is essential for the success of civilization. So morality can be viewed as perfect judgment component when it comes to legislation. Morality is dependent upon the majority of civilization. Legal moralism encompasses the views in the majority and so, is more democratic. Society is held by simply common thoughts of individuals. The bondage of such common thoughts is essential to preserve world. Legal moralism upholds your decision of the social common thoughts. Cons:
вЂўInfringes individual flexibility
вЂўMorals are often religious than not. Thus, groups based on a religious positioning than the dominating will not be treated fairly by legal moralism based on the dominant religion. вЂўPopulist opinions and views overshadow less known opinions and opinions. вЂўDiversity of thoughts are suppressed
Just as much as I think legal moralism ought to be part of the legal process and decisions, for me do not concur that it needs to be the predominant decision factor in legal system. Legal moralism decreases the individual independence and forces individuals to adhere to the main social norms. Take for an example, wedding between two homosexuals will be banned in numerous states. This kind of example evidently infringes the freedom of homosexuals to marry and have a family group like heterosexuals. As time passes, culture changes and values alter. Legal moralism does not have the flexibility to perfectly keep up with the ever changing ideals and customs of the contemporary society. Hence, I really believe that legal moralism is too rigid to accommodate with the changing society, beliefs and values and cannot justify while groundwork to get the greater great of contemporary society.