Holmes Path To Law

In viewing Oliver Homles’ idea to the path of law, he suggests that incorporating morality and logic confuses its purpose. He felt that under an ideal legal system we as citizens would be able to predict how the law will affect us and the two concepts disrupt our ability to do so. I agree and disagree with this idea, since both logic and morality have valuable and positive effects on the law. More so logic than morality is fundamental in the workings, construction, and action of the law. He equates applying logic to law as viewing law itself as a problem that can be solved and solved in one “right” way. That is problematic ad an over exaggeration, law such following and be guided by some logical deduction of it would just be spontaneous, irrelevant, and inconsistent. There is a limit, it should not me so logically formatted that it leaves no room for deviations and exceptions, and that is a formidable task but very possible which I feel Holmes neglects. When applying morality, it’s even harder but there should be some relationship between law and morality. After all law does dictate wrongs and rights which are moral factors, but it is much easier to allow morality to overtake law which is the only way I could see Holmes’ path of law being clouded. In essence, both morality and logic are related to law and should be, the task is to make sure that the law is an independent system that incorporates these ideals and not constructed around them.