Definition of Legal Moralism

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Legal moralism is the belief that acts may be criminalized on the basis of their immorality.

Examples of legal moralism can be found in anti-gambling, anti-prostitution, and anti-


bigotry laws.

Definition of Legal Moralism


In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the anti-Sodomy laws in 13 States in the
landmark Lawrence v. Texas case. In arguments before the court, the State of Texas
argued that it's laws were justified because they were against immoral behavior and that
this justified making actions like sodomy illegal. This view of law is referred to as legal
moralism, a theory of law that permits the criminalization of immoral actions. As we move
forward in this lesson, we will learn about what legal moralism is and take a look at a few
examples of legal moralism to clarify how it works.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, aren't criminal actions ones that are immoral, like
theft or murder? It is true that actions like stealing or killing are immoral, but they are not
necessarily illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they clearly cause
harm to others. The idea that what causes harm should be illegal was formulated by John
Stuart Mill, and actions that cause harm are criminalized on the basis of protecting the
rights of others. According to the Harm Principle any action that causes harm to others,
whether immoral or not, can be criminalized. This is why immoral actions, like murder or
theft, are criminalized as well as acts that arise due to unintentional or negligent harm.

Legal moralism goes beyond the Harm Principle and argues that the law is supposed to
promote morality and that the immorality of an action is a reason to make it illegal. Legal
moralism is best articulated in Plato's Republic where Socrates argues that the job of the
state is to create and enforce laws to foster moral citizens. Even if an action only harms the
person engaged in the activity, or consent of others, the fact that society deems the practice
immoral can be reason enough to make it immoral.

Legal moralism does not mean that every immoral action should be criminal, only that
immorality of an action is reason enough to make it illegal.

Moral Absolutism
Moral absolutism asserts that there are certain universal moral principles by which all
peoples’ actions may be judged. It is a form of deontology.

The challenge with moral absolutism, however, is that there will always be strong
disagreements about which moral principles are correct and which are incorrect.

For example, most people around the world probably accept the idea that we should treat
others as we wish to be treated ourselves. But beyond that, people from different countries
likely hold varying views about everything from the morality of abortion and capital
punishment to nepotism and bribery.

Moral absolutism contrasts with moral relativism, which denies that there are absolute
moral values. It also differs from moral pluralism, which urges tolerance of others’ moral
principles without concluding that all views are equally valid.

So, while moral absolutism declares a universal set of moral values, in reality, moral
principles vary greatly among nations, cultures, and religions.

Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles.
It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say,
“Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.

Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards
are culturally defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem
nearly universal, such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures
when people evaluate moral standards around the world.

Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the
moral values of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their
unique beliefs, customs, and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right”
moral values are the values that exist in their own culture.
Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other’s differing
moral values, given that there are no universal moral principles. Most philosophers
disagree however. For example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn’t mean
that other cultures cannot rightfully condemn it.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which
says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere
to moral relativism would say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

Moral Pluralism
Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy
of respect.

Moral pluralists tend to be open-minded when faced with competing viewpoints. They
analyze issues from several moral points of view before deciding and taking action.

Moral pluralists believe that many moral issues are extremely complicated. Thus, no single
philosophical approach will always provide all the answers.

For example, assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to rush inside and
save the children trapped in the burning building. But in doing this she may die, and leave
her own child an orphan. A moral pluralist would conclude that there is no definitive way
to decide which is the better course of moral action. Indeed, moral pluralism declares that
it is sometimes difficult to choose between competing values.

So, moral pluralism occupies a sensible middle ground between “there is only one right
answer”  as moral absolutism says, and “there is no wrong answer” as moral relativism
claims.

You might also like