Lon Fuller's Case Of The Grudge Informer

In this paper I argue Lon Fuller's argument for which procedures should be taken when dealing with Grudge Informer cases act accordingly with proper law. As a natural law theorist, Fuller is a firm believer in the practices of implementing morality when creating law. To put any philosopher, who epitomizes their beliefs, under a true test of fidelity to law must make a decision what they ought to do when presented with a grudge informer case while Fuller would believe in what you should do. What law ought to be and what law should be differentiates morality in law from the separation of morality and law.
The cases of the grudge informer were first introduced after the demise of the Nazi Legal System. Fuller conceived an imaginary case and places the reader in the role of the Minister of Justice to make a difficult choice. The story begins with the introduction of the Purple Shirts, a political party who intimidated anyone who would not vote for them. Once elected, the country was rendered under a reign of terror as they became the sovereign of a powerless nation. The …show more content…
Principle 2, " failure to publicize, or at least to make available to the affected party, the rules he is expected to observe" and principle 7, "introducing such frequent changes in the rules that the subject cannot orient his action by them" identify the two principles that have not been followed to explain how this legal system is not a legal system and is, however, a failed system of law. Fuller has written these eight principles to describe which credentials are needed for a perfect legal system but, these principles cannot be achieved without expelling morality from law. Fuller would argue that morality would take priority when making a decision that is why when dealing with the grudge informer he would side with the second