legal moralism checkpoint

legal moralism checkpoint - legal moralism would be a good...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Margaret Henderson ADJ/235 Legal Moralism September 3, 2010 “Legal moralism is the view that the law can legitimately be used to prohibit behaviors that conflict with society’s collective moral judgments even when those behaviors do not result in physical or psychological harm to others.” - Kenneth Einar Himma The pros of such a view would be: It would enforce a certain amount of conformity in society. A certain amount of conformity in society is a good thing because it allows people to base their expectations on something. It is democratic. In order for there to be a collective moral judgment it has to be in some sense based on majority rule. To the extent that you believe that majority rule or democracy is a good in and of itself then
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: legal moralism would be a good thing. The cons of such a view would be: It would suppress minority views. Obviously if you do not agree with the collective moral judgment, your minority view would be subject to suppression and possible penalty. The collective moral judgment may not be based on fact. Sometimes societies can devolve into a sort of mass hysteria based on false information or incomplete knowledge. This could be a problem if laws are based on something other than facts. Ultimately, I personally believe that if people just acted more morally there would not be the need for laws to force people into morality. Sources: Retrieved on September 2, 2010 from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/#SSH2a.i...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/17/2010 for the course ADJ235 235 taught by Professor Kennard during the Spring '10 term at University of Phoenix.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online