Analysis of Natural Law of Holmes - Essay Example

ANALYSIS ON HOLMES NATURAL LAW Insert Analysis On Holmes Natural Law Oliver Wendell Holmes, is one of the most vital personality in the United States Supreme court of justice who has made an impact on the modern attitude of law practices and side of jurisprudence. His formulation of the critical analysis of natural law led him to set grounds for modern justice practices and the court rulings. Natural law is a set of rules that have been governing mankind from the time of its origin. These set of natural rules are dictated by men on other men. There are no specific rules but they shape up with the time and circumstances. Holmes justifies through his critique that there is objectivity of morals upon which the human laws or the current laws are based. They are based on social advantage and the practical effects they make on the society and the community. The author claims that the beliefs and wishes that are held by the human kind or more specifically a human has some transcendental basis and by this a hint in the religious side of matter relies. The foundational sense of it all is arbitrary and that men cannot help themselves in feeling or understanding it. The necessity to survive is a great struggle and condition which involves eating and drinking. Without survival basis nothing makes sense in the world of humans and the habitat that they possess 1. As this suggests that laws are present for the benefit of the community and not a single individual but if categorized, they are then aimed for the benefit of the man, which is a part of the larger community. By “transcendental basis”, Holmes means that the religious values or other inner morals that the individual holds. In no way are the laws that are made constant but they rather keep changing with the society as per need. In reference to Homes view on the natural law and his take on the general idea, it seems that most of it is influenced by Social Darwinism and the social pragmatic values of the society which are more influenced by the society we live in. He asserts that laws are made and adapted according to the environment of man and are not dictated from generations to generations and this is a slow but gradual process of betterment. Holmes position in the paper is made clear that he believes in the changes of the environment as a trigger to implement or change the existing laws that are held by the mankind. The morality of every law and moral consciousness depends on the ideology held by the society or the individuals that shape up the society. Holmes justifies his position on a clear stance of moral consciousness and the needs of the society by arguing the point that man prefers those who have the same stance as him and probably the same beliefs. However, if he holds a different viewpoint and has a different stance then they wage war and are likely to kill each other as discussed that men do not let other men have their ways. If it is out of the ordinary or something that the two do not agree on then wars occur while, if they hold the same ground as our ideals then they survive and we survive without any hindrance in the living cycle2. He also argues the point that the jurist who hold the natural law in regard are naïve and that this should not be the point when making decisions regarding rulings in courts since, strict principals change with time and what might be good for one may not be good for the others. 3 This asserts his point then again that he criticizes the natural law as a set of beliefs that change according to the society rather than something that holds a dictated quality. They are based on the moral consciousness of the individuals. Holmes Argument in support of his position on Natural Laws Holmes in support of his argument gives the example of courts and the judges in the house of justice. According to him, the set of laws that are set by the “law makers” are just the predictions of judges and lawyers based on the current science and economic facts. They are backed up with history and in cases are relied on the “necessities” of the time that is being encountered. In other words, according to him the laws that are made mandatory to follow by the general body of men are based on the moral consciousness of the judges and other men that are held on a higher pedestal of dictating what is true and what is wrong. He gave an example of a case relating the Kant and Hegel which opinionated that the burning and destruction of the cargo was justified. The judge who was in the ruling at that time felt that the whole act of destruction was justified and that even though the act would stifle a man below but it still appeared justified to him.4 This made it clear that whether or not the act in the long run is effective but on the immediate grounds if it is justified then the truth is victorious and prevails in the history as mentioned by the author before. What prevails in the society are the acts that are morally backed up by the people in general and so they are okay with the idea of them being governed by those set of rules and regulations. Activity in certain social situations to shape up future laws and then restraining certain acts is what makes up the set of rules that are glorified by men as laws and those who follow them as law abiding citizens of the institution. Holmes on one hand suggests that most of the results or the dictated rules passed by the law forming bodies are based on the current times and the popular will of the society. This is a generalized approach. He mentioned that the people who rule in courts need to be precise and interpret the laws more carefully, which in short inclines towards the ideas of indulging more in the natural laws of nature and then making careful calculations and decisions. Implications of his position For Holmes, the laws are more objective and not subjective which when looked upon in the modern society can cause a serious implication. If an objective color is given to all the acts committed by the mankind, then Holmes declares war as an objective instinct towards self -protection. But this can be countered by the happening of World War Two in which Hitler ended up eliminating millions of Jewish people just because of his hatred. The objectivity of the subject does not give it a more rational viewpoint and that ends up eliminating and discriminating a few ideas and happenings in history. He claims to argue the fact that survival is based on fighting and claiming the right to live which hints out the social Darwinism theory and the acts that are committed in order to live. The need to live is supreme in human beings and while some might not want to, the majority of it does want to live. Also, as humans leave to the unknown, the supposed final value or valuation of that which in any case has some value to the human kind5. This power dynamics is a shifting viewpoint and that our morals are just based on the inquiry that change over time and shape up the society which then again has made it over simplified and objective while there are subjective ideas to the same thing. Anything that may make sense and reason to one man may not make sense and reason to another, by which we have two distinguished factors to the same idea. This has made also the need of want and wanting something by the society as a question that remains unanswered in the analysis provided by Holmes. Bibliography Natural Law. Harvard Law Review 40, 191. 180-183 Read More