My thoughts on Holmes- Morality and law

The differences between morality and law in, “The path of the law,” was very fascinating and had some very though-provoking points. Two of the points that stood out the most I would have to agree with Thomas, is the human side of the law and the bad man. Holmes starts to talk about the whole “bad man situation” in the beginning, and starts to go into when wanting to obeying it and understanding the law a “morally corrupt” man has every reason to want to understand all this. It all fits in very well with the idea that every human is allowed to use the law to their benefit. But it still upholds spiteful habits while still bringing up no doubts in the legal system. As you go into the reading more you come across another point. The point is basically highlighting that lawyers are not who you think they are and aren’t enforcers but rather that they are directed into doing what they do. Studying law, you know that walking into the court you know what to expect how the court will rule and react in certain cases, as well as how react to those reactions and rulings. The biggest part in a lawyer’s job is to be prepared since you are guided your whole way through and know what to expect. This point is giving off the idea that these laws are not objective or impartial, but rather flexible depending on the people involved of course. When it comes to the judges and juries in he court, you have to think of if you yourself were in the position. Wouldn’t you be strongly influenced by the expressive testimonies that are being presented to you? Certain people do receive very one-sided and unfair treatment for their sex, religious background, educational background, and etc. In conclusion, the separation of law and morality are very important issues to keep in mind when deliberating the philosophy of law, as well as the human interpretations that goes into ruling legal matters.