Introduction
Hart-Fuller debate is one of the popular academic topics in jurisprudence. Every student of law, irrespective of their course (LLB, BA.LLB, B.com.LLB etc) study about this debate. It is perhaps very interesting academic debates of all times.
It shows division between the positivist and the role of morality in law. While H.L.A Hart stated that law and morality are distinct from each other and they are termed as “mutually exclusive”.
On the other hand, Fuller had the perspective in which there is a existence of a strong relationship between law and morality and even the authority of law originated from its consistency with morality. Hence morality becomes law when it is developed after a long time.
What is law and morality
Law and Morality are those concepts which can be understood easily but it becomes challenging while defining. Legal rights and obligations are the subjects of law which guard us from unauthorized suffering. The Governments also fall under the subject of laws and they should use these laws for the protection of citizens.
These laws are backed by sanctions, therefore it might result in punishment. Human activity is classified as either good or bad by morality. However, moral duties and obligations form the basis of the standards of morality. One cannot be held liable for failing the specified moral standards.
Morality is a kind of incentive system. When we act morally (do the right thing), we gain virtue and receive acclaim; when we act immorally (do wrong thing), we feel guilty and unpopular. Morality and the law both influence how people behave.
Law is simply focused on controlling men's external concerns, whereas morality is concerned with regulating men's internal and external actions. We are frequently confused by the relationship between morality and the law. Although it is true that laws reflect public morality to some extent, it is also true that some actions may not be against the law but may be against morality.
Prof Hart‟s view on Law and Morality
Professor Hart was an eminent critical philosopher and legal positivist. He believes that laws do not always need to meet specific moral requirements because he was a legal positivist.
Although he recognizes the strong relationship between morality and the law, he does not think the two are mutually dependent (not dependent on each other). He argues that the validity of a law cannot be judged based on its advantages or disadvantages. Regardless of our preferences (choices), a law just happens to exist.
It is not necessary for an existing legal system to adhere to a set of fundamental moral principles. It is not necessary for a legal system to demonstrate some moral uniformity. In simple terms, moral objections are not invalidating the existence of laws.
Hart agrees that morality has had a significant impact on the evolution of law, contrary to other legal positivists. Hart believes that morality and the law are going to come into contact.
As a result, it becomes essential to differentiate between what the law is and what it should be. Hart argues that legal interpreters ought to demonstrate the honesty or credibility of the law by focusing on what it says rather than on the part about what one wants it to say.
According to Hart, primary and secondary rules are the two types of rules that make up the foundation of law:
One way to understand the secondary rules is to consider them as rules regarding basic or primary rules. The core of the legal system is made up of the primary and secondary rules. Furthermore, the ultimate rule that unites the legal system as a single unit is the concept of justice, also known as the rule of recognition.
Hart recognizes the potential issue that could arise from ambiguous wording in a statute's language, which he calls the law's "core." Not every case may perfectly fall under the purview of the law.
Standard usage of the words may not always be enough to make sure that the legislation is properly applied. These are referred to as the penumbra issue by the Professor. The meaning of a statute's language has to be decided before applying legal principles to that particular facts of the case.
According to Hart, judicial interpretation can effectively resolve the penumbra's issues. Hart examines the important relation among morality and the law in order to address the penumbra's issues. Moral judgments about what the law should be are sometimes the measure that renders a conclusion sound in these situations, and morality can play an important role in penumbra case decisions.
Professor Fuller‟s view on law and morality
According to Professor Fuller, law is a specific approach to achieving social order by directing people's conduct in accordance with regulations. It requires placing human behavior under the control of regulations.
Fuller believes that moral standards of fairness establish the foundation for our judicial system. When deciding whether a collection of laws qualifies as a legal system, the processes that make up that system are of moral importance.
According to him, a law needs to satisfy a moral functional test in order to be considered a law in the actual sense. A rule or group of rules does not qualify as a law if they do not fulfill this purpose.
Fuller divides the term "morality" into two separate categories which are following:
Aspirational morality refers to a desirable standard of behavior for people that would aim to advance their best interests.
The standards that people comply with at particular times and places in order to maintain the smooth operation of society are known as morality of duty.
Fuller refers to the "external morality of law" and the "internal morality of law" as the second set of moralities. The process of creating laws is the focus of internal morality of law. It is possible to define internal morality of law as a morality of aspiration as opposed to duty. Furthermore, the substantive legal rules that are used when making decisions are indicated by the external morality of law.
Fuller disagrees with the positivist view of the law. He advises lawmakers to understand that society can achieve its goals in ways other than through the use of the law. He thinks that if lawmakers are aware of this, they will be able to effectively use the law as a tool to control our society.
According to Fuller, not all mandates with the authority to enforce compliance can legitimately be regarded as laws. Fuller says, a principle must be evaluated in light of these eight criteria in order to be recognized as law.
1. The concept needs to be explained in a way which makes it applicable to the majority. It can not be made for only a few people only.
2. Laws must always be presented to those who propagate.
3. New legal doctrines ought to be applied prospectively at all times. Only in exceptional circumstances might the law be applied retroactively, depending on external conditions.
4. The law needs to be clear. It should not be ambiguous.
5. There should be no conflicting rules in the law.
6. People should not be subjected to impossible requirements of behavior by laws.
7. According to Fuller, it is preferable to follow previously declared norms, such as stare decisis.
8. Fuller contends that in order to attain the goals of the law, it must meet the prerequisites of what he refers to as "congruence," which is compliance to the established standards and the things that people do.
In order to decide if a law is legitimately acceptable or not, lawmakers should take into account each of the eight conditions, as suggested by Fuller. Despite being a natural law philosopher, Fuller disagrees with other natural law philosophers in that he thinks some principles can be traced back to the directives of a supreme entity, making them universally applicable laws that regulate human behavior.
According to Fuller, the origin and application of law are terrestrial. Man creates laws to meet the requirements of humanity. Therefore, a law must be unified in its purpose to regulate human behavior in order to achieve the goals of society.
Keywords: hart and fuller debate hart and fuller debate on law and morality hart fuller debate on law and morality fuller and hart debate hart and fuller debate notes
