Morals determine greater social good. The purpose of law is preserving greater social good. With this being said, putting morality in legal 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 survival of civilization. So morality can be viewed as quintessential judgment factor when it comes to law. Morality is determined by the majority of civilization. Legal moralism encompasses the views of the majority and thus, is more democratic. Society is held by common thoughts of individuals. The bondage of such common thoughts is necessary to preserve civilization. Legal moralism upholds the decision of the societal common thoughts. Cons:
•Infringes individual freedom
•Morals are often religious than not. Thus, groups with different religious orientation than the dominant will not be treated fairly by legal moralism based on the dominant religion. •Populist views and opinions overshadow less known views and opinions. •Diversity of thoughts are suppressed
As much as I think legal moralism 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 moralism interferes with the individual freedom and forces individuals to adhere to the predominant social norms. Take for an example, the marriage between two homosexuals are banned in many states. This example clearly infringes the freedom of homosexuals to get married and have a family like heterosexuals. As time passes, society changes and values change. Legal moralism does not have the flexibility to keep up with the ever changing values and traditions of the society. Hence, I believe that legal moralism is too rigid to accommodate with the changing society, beliefs and values and cannot justify as groundwork for the greater good of society.