'Legal Moralism\r'

'Morals determine great social good. The purpose of law Is preserving greater social good. With this being said, putting religion In legal lasts brings out a greater social good as a whole. Fundamental agreement most what Is bad and what Is good (morality) is essential for the natural selection of collocation. So morality can be viewed as quintessential Judgment gene when It comes to law. Morality Is determined by the volume of civilization. statutory martinet encompasses the views of the majority and thus, Is more democratic. smart set Is held by public thoughts of Individuals. The bondage of such(prenominal) common thoughts Is necessary to preserve collocation. sub judice martinet upholds the decision of the societal common thoughts. Cons: Infringes Individual freedom Morals argon often ghostlike than non. Thus, groups with different religious orientation than the dominant will not be treated fairly by legal moralist based on he dominant religion. Populist views and opinions rule less known views and opinions. ; Diversity of thoughts be suppressed As much as I think legal moralist should be part of the legal assist and decisions, in my opinion do not agree that it should be the predominant decision factor in legal system. Legal moralist interferes with the individual freedom and forces individuals to hang to the predominant social norms. Take for an example, the man and wife teen two homosexuals are illegalize in many states.This example intelligibly infringes the freedom of homosexuals to get married and carry a family like heterosexuals. As duration passes, society changes and determine change. Legal moralist does not have the flexibility to continue up with the ever ever-changing values and traditions of the society. Hence, I believe that legal moralist is too rigid to accommodate with the changing society, beliefs and values and cannot Justify as stem for the greater good of society.\r\n'