Legal Moralism

Morals determine greater social good. The purpose of jurisprudence Is preserving greater social good. With this being said, putting morality In levelheaded decisions brings out a greater social good as a whole. Fundamental agreement about what Is bad and what Is good (morality) is essential for the choice of collocation. So morality can be viewed as quintessential psyche portion when It comes to law. Morality Is determined by the mass of civilization.Legal moralist encompasses the views of the majority and thus, Is more democratic. Society Is held by reciprocalplace thoughts of Individuals. The bondage of such common thoughts Is necessary to preserve collocation. Legal moralist upholds the decision of the societal common thoughts. Cons Infringes Individual freedom Morals be often religious than not. Thus, groups with assorted religious orientation than the dominant will not be interact fairly by effectual moralist based on he dominant religion. Populist views and tones o vershadow less known views and opinions. Diversity of thoughts argon suppressed As much as I think reasoned moralist should be part of the legal process 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 sting to the predominant social norms. Take for an example, the marriage teen two homosexuals are banned in many states.This example clearly infringes the freedom of homosexuals to give married and have a family like heterosexuals. As time passes, rules of order changes and values change. Legal moralist does not have the flexibility to concord up with the 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 cut as groundwork for the greater good of society.