So, I don’t wholly object to legalism. If you take the story about the roving bandit and the stationary bandit where the stationary bandit became the state, and to me that was a great advantage because it formalized the rules. You could still be exploited, but if you knew how and when you would be exploited, you could plan, you could build, you could do all sorts of things. Legalism in this case can be thought of as a technology that helped us.
But there’s a difference between that and thinking that if only we could get the right set of rules, we can be saved. In my mind, if we could make a legal system so universally good it couldn’t be abused, than we wouldn’t need a legal system because we’re already just so good. So I don’t think that rules are the answer to this problem.
I think a softer version of that same premise does work. The system creates the incentives people are responding to, they do actually respond to them, and there is a LOT of room for improvement.
The design of the system is absolutely crucial. It might require morality to enforce, but it is the system that creates the context/environment within which morality is learned - or unlearned, in the case of damage to corruption-resistance in Communist countries that lasts to this day, after they are no longer Communist.
It also creates the expectations about what is normal, which is part of what LGBTs are trying to make sure gay marriage is recognized legally (rather than opting for weaker “civil unions”).