Hart-Fuller Debate Analysis

Better Essays
The Hart-Fuller debate is arguably one of the most interesting and contentious debates in jurisprudence. The debate clearly highlights the divide between two jurisprudential schools of thought: legal positivism and natural law, particularly in the context of Nazi laws. The multitudinous nature of jurisprudential inquiry concerning the relationship between law and morality allows for numerous conflicting interpretations and opinions. Therefore, it is important to limit the scope of this essay. This will be done by considering Prof. Lon Fuller’s claim that there is an intrinsic connection between law and morality and Prof. H.L.A Hart’s rejection thereof. First, Hart’s support of the separation thesis will be considered. This thesis is …show more content…
Do not mistake this pronouncement for ambiguity. While ‘separation’ connotes the bold idea that law and morality should be kept separate, this was not Hart’s intention. Hart, put simply, maintained the idea that law and morality shared no ‘necessary’ connection; law and morality are not inter-dependant on each other and whether the law conforms to a set of minimum moral standards is not a pre-requisite for the existence of a valid legal system. A legal system is a freestanding system of what is and it doesn’t need to point beyond itself to other conceptions - e.g. morality - to justify its autonomous state and separability of what ought to be. Hart, however, unlike other legal positivists, didn't deny that the development of law has been profoundly influenced by morality; acknowledging that law and morals are bound to intersect at some point. This is in fact true. Their union is commonplace. One example includes prohibiting sex discrimination, as we deem it immoral. In this sense, ‘separation’ may be substituted with ‘separability’ for a better representation of the thesis’s ideology. Further, while Hart does not define ‘necessary connection’, he proves to be liberal in his interpretation. Despite this, the critics of positivism have managed to reach a patently false conclusion that, according to positivism, there is no connection whatsoever between law and morality. Therefore, Fuller argues, Hart’s ‘minimum content theory’ represents a contradiction on his part. Fuller believes such theory is analogous with the law’s internal morality, only Hart refers to this as ‘justice in the administration of laws’. It must be argued, to the contrary, that this inclusionary positivistic approach does not constitute a necessary connection

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 2196 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In this theory, the law is validated, not by morality, but by the shifting demands of the society. Hart then has no issue in confronting Aquinas. At the same time, his arguing against Aquinas is questionable at best. He essentially asserts that the belief that an unjust law is not a law is an exaggeration so extreme, it cannot be upheld as rational. Hart recognizes that morality and law share qualities, as in duties and obligations, but he holds that Aquinas confuses the two to an unreasonable extent.…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    These justifications cannot come from prejudice. Cannot be justified by emotional responses such as disgust. They cannot come from others beliefs, which someone takes as their own and cannot rely on personal moral opinions. Reasons that support a moral belief should be rational and consistent. Moral positions are only valid if they come from Dworkin’s qualifications of what is justifiable, (Dyzenhaus, Dworkin, 394).…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to David Hume, morality is something that is unable to be created via reason alone. Primarily since because ideologies are incapable of motivating us enough to act. As result, according to Hume, morality comes from emotions. Our emotions make the judgment on what is right or wrong, and that leads us to approve or disapprove of the act. We may reason why exactly or the many different scenarios where an action or duty may appear moral at first glance, what W.D.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Legal Positivism Analysis

    • 1196 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Thus, any law that hinder such principles are taken to be unjust, contrary to the needs of a peaceful society. These two philosophies do not necessarily contradict each other. For example, positivists would not dismiss the validity of laws from a moral perception, only if they are constructed by a sovereign power. They do however, merely oppose to subjective morality or ethical principles that develop and promulgate a…

    • 1196 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals. (Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Therefore, the relativist’s claim is illogical. To add on to this argument for endorsing an absolutist attitude, despite moral relativists taking a tolerant attitude toward other cultures and their customs, the concept of ‘one should do whatever the local custom does, given all things are seen as equal’ is not purely moral relativism because it is based on the existence of an absolute norm. Another reason to reject moral relativism is because relativism does not welcome the possibility that there may just be certain universal moral values. Relativism does not evaluate, analyze, or criticize certain practices in different cultures. An example would be murder.…

    • 761 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Cultural Differences argument postulates that different cultures have different moral codes. Hence right and wrong is only a matter of opinions, and opinions vary from culture to culture. However, James Rachel points out the invalidity of the argument - the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Disagreements between two different beliefs does not necessarily mean there is no objective truth in the matter, such…

    • 1886 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The main differences between natural law and legal positivism is the element of morality. Natural law provides that the law should reflect on moral order whereas the legal positivism states that there is no connection between law and morality. In legal positivism, HLA Hart had come…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays