No system of ethics can be 100% perfectly self-consistent in a mathematical sense. And no legal system can remove ambiguity from human interactions, there will always be fuzzy gray areas which require subjective interpretation.
Consider something very straightforward such as the notion that using violence is never allowed except in utmost self-defense. Firstly, it's not possible to determine the circumstances of an event without doubt. Secondly, it's similarly difficult to determine intent and motivation, being internal to the human mind, which means that it's impossible to prove in every case whether or not a perceived attacker actually meant to hurt or kill someone and whether or not someone alleged to be defending themselves perceived such a threat and acted only to defend themselves. And going back to the first point, even if violence were completely outlawed it would be difficult in many cases to rule out an accidental cause of death vs. an intentional cause. There's simply no way to divorce justice from subjective judgment (of both the facts and the intent).
Additionally, the attempt to divorce the law from society, to make it a separate edifice independent of human beings, is itself a very dangerous idea. To the extent that such a thing is possible it would mean the ability to mold mankind into whatever form you desired, through the force of external law.
Consider something very straightforward such as the notion that using violence is never allowed except in utmost self-defense. Firstly, it's not possible to determine the circumstances of an event without doubt. Secondly, it's similarly difficult to determine intent and motivation, being internal to the human mind, which means that it's impossible to prove in every case whether or not a perceived attacker actually meant to hurt or kill someone and whether or not someone alleged to be defending themselves perceived such a threat and acted only to defend themselves. And going back to the first point, even if violence were completely outlawed it would be difficult in many cases to rule out an accidental cause of death vs. an intentional cause. There's simply no way to divorce justice from subjective judgment (of both the facts and the intent).
Additionally, the attempt to divorce the law from society, to make it a separate edifice independent of human beings, is itself a very dangerous idea. To the extent that such a thing is possible it would mean the ability to mold mankind into whatever form you desired, through the force of external law.