Most metaethics philosophers would agree that moral ''plurality'' is essentially impossible under the notion of moral objectivism. meaning that morals are objective abstractions to which human beings discover rather then invent.
I would argue that even in a pluralistic society law has the role of educating people and establishing boundaries of what that society stands for. Take for instance the paradox of tolerance, how tolerant should a tolerant liberal society should be in the face of religious extremism, things like child marriage and other thorny issues of society like freedom of speech, rights of different groups, etc, so if we cannot count on the law to resolve this issues then society will descent into chaos even further.
@@learnlawwithhannah indeed I am and thank you for the reply. In depth I meant as in the content that an A* student has compared to others, a little on exam technique, and how to not waste time in the exam on lengthy explanations if shorter sentences get you the mark.
