system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: In today's increasingly individualistic world, moralism should not influence state laws

In older societies, such as early agricultural- or hunting groups, where the individuals worked together for the benefit of the group, moralism played a more crucial role as the actions of one individual (even if not targeted at anyone else than themselves) could affect the whole group. Similar things can be said about larger, homogenous societies but even then the group moralism can be detrimental for individuals who do not adhere to general standards.

However, assuming you live in a developed nation (such as Canada, USA, most of Europe, and so on), individualistic efforts are generally more encouraged and most people are expected to look after themselves; therefore, laws and regulations should not be created from a moralistic standpoint but rather on rational arguments. For example, banning drug use, polygamy, LGBTQ-rights, or to a more extreme extent even necrophilia (assuming consent from all participants has been sorted out) for the sake of it being "wrong" are not the basis for a rational argument.
gpt
>  laws and regulations should not be created from a moralistic standpoint but rather on rational arguments

Morals don't come from rational arguments?

How do you justify this?

If you split the two then you have things like murder, rape, etc becoming legal, because these things are moral in their very nature.

(As is pretty much every law, but those two are obvious)