Grudge Informer Case Analysis

Proposition: Hart argues that we conceptualized the Grudge informer case by maintaining unjust law is still a law, but perhaps so unjust that it should be disobeyed:
On the one hand, we will begin our analysis by explaining the first part of the proposition “Hart argues that we conceptualized the Grudge informer case by maintaining unjust law is still a law”. In order to understand why according to him an unjust law is still a law, it is necessary to remind briefly his view on the connection between law and morality. As a matter of fact, it is obvious that as Hart is a legal positivist, he is claiming that there is not a necessary connection between law and morality but a contingent one . Nevertheless, even if there is a possible connection …show more content…
In fact, the Nazi German legal system failed to conform to the eight desiderata of the internal morality created by Fuller. Thus, it was not considered as a legal system and laws were no more considered as valid and legally enforceable. In this respect, Fuller argued that it was not an adequate solution to remove the problem by saying “Under the Nazi there was law, even it was a bad law” . Indeed, in that case, Fuller is considering that if all Nazi laws were considered as laws, then it will be like saying Nazi and informers are not guilty because they followed the law. Nevertheless, it is not tolerable because it would strongly affect the close circle of victims to leave these people unpunished because either they suffer a loss or their loved ones were imprisoned for years because of Nazis and informers . Finally, we can illustrate Fuller’s point of view by an enlightening quotation “To me there is nothing shocking in saying that a dictatorship which clothes itself with a tinsel of legal form can so far depart from the morality of order, from the inner morality of law itself, that it ceases to be a legal system” . This part will lead us to …show more content…
In fact, according to me we have a “prima facie” duty to obey laws. If the law is legally enacted by an authorised entity it is valid in the legal system. Therefore, the law is applied and obeyed by citizens. In other words, “law is to be obeyed because it is the law” . However, “prima facie” means that “it is accepted as correct until proved otherwise” . As a consequence, we have a duty to obey the law but it can be overridden when we have a more pressing moral obligation . Furthermore, to reinforce my point of view I will rely on what Finnis advocated concerning that matter. He was also conscious that saying an unjust law is not a law is a contradiction, when he talked about the peripheral sense of law. Indeed, he explained that law has two senses. On the one hand, law has a focal meaning, “it describes rules which secure the common good by co-ordinating the different goods of individuals” . Consequently, according to him, unjust laws are not laws “in the focal sense of the term” . In fact, it means that Nazi laws don’t show the best example of a law because they are not in line with moral values. However, according to me laws are not only a description of what is just or moral, it is meaningless and restrictive to say that because some laws are morally neutral. Indeed, Finnis considered that unjust laws such as Nazi