Essay Sample on Explaining the Enduring Resonance of the Hart-Fuller Debate

Introduction

Nicola Lacey describes the disagreement between Hart and Fuller and gives an in-depth analysis of the factors that contribute to the debate's lasting resonance. The discussion highlights the complementary relationship between the legal theory aspects of historical and moral notions. As a result, the debate has managed to remain relevant today because it addresses some of the most pressing issues in the modern world such as politics by giving a more conceptual analysis.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Hart presents a comprehensive argument for the legal positivist view of the law that emphasizes the differences between law and morality and criticizes the notion of natural law. On the other hand, Lon Fuller a natural law philosopher believes that there is a deep connection between law and morality that ought to be based on conventional morality. This debate gives a background of how the moral and practical conceptions of law affect the rule of law in the international customs and regulations.

Points of Contentions between Hart and Fuller

The argument expounds on issues that were traditionally classified as analytical jurisprudence such as positivist temper. Hart's legal philosophy is based on historical, moral and institutional matters explained conceptually. Initially, Fuller's response depicts the natural law theory while Hart focuses on the importance of the legal positivism. The supporters of the debate engage in a very smart joinder of the issue by giving significant attention to the Resentment Informer of Nazi Germany during the Second World War and offers conceptual analyses of the common problems experienced in international law. The debate further infers the atrocities caused to individuals such as the exploitation of people through slavery that remains existent in the modern world. The discussion has also managed to stay relevant due to its rhetorical writing skills and the publication in a widely read and influential journal. Similarly, the debate gives a broad scope of knowledge in the fields of jurisprudence and natural law theory (Lacey, 1060).

Hart emphasizes the importance of "a purely analytical study of legal concepts," as distinct from "historical or sociological studies," (Lacey, 1062). He further argues that "jurisprudence brings about, uncertainty on the margin of many subjects" (Lacey, 1062). Hart explores the relationship between the moral values of positivism and the institutional and political implications in a specific historical context knowledgeably. The legal theory discussed by Hart was explicitly analytic. Hart concedes that the American and French Revolutions helped shape the Bentham's thinking but refuses to acknowledge the fact that legal positivism was the reason for the emergence of highly organized states. His argument is mainly based on his emphasis on moral and practical implications of separating conceptual analysis from ethical questions concerning the law.

Nicole Lacey argues that philosophical analysis of political and legal concepts needs to explain in more historical and institutional theory, and Hart disregards the importance of this type of contextualization which limits the height or impact of his legal and political philosophy. Hart should have emulated Holmes Lecture that was founded on the grounds of conceptual and historical analyses that heavily relied on practical and moral purposive approach.

Hart and Fuller on the Rule of Law

Hart's discussion was supposed to be delivered as part of the Holmes Lecture in 1957 at Harvard, but due to Fuller's demand for a right to reply it became part of the debate (Lacey, 1063). Hart confidently defended the brand of analytical jurisprudence against the two antagonists of positivism. Hart rejects the common notion that legal positivism provides a formalistic and a mechanistic vision that is incorporated in the legal reasoning where judges naturally infer their judgments and conclusions from closed sets of premises. Hart defends that there is a conceptual connection between law and morality and insists on "moral advantages to making a clear separation between our determination of what the law is and our vision of what it ought to be" (Lacey, 1064).

Hart defines the rule of law as a system of rules and not a sovereign command by explaining the social realities of law in a demographic and secular setting. Hart's concept of law as a system of regulation fits better in the contemporary democracies unlike the sovereign command of positivists such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Harts gives a better understanding of the rule of law that is distinct from the rule of man. This debate elaborates the importance of the rule of law, a topic that is not wholly elaborated under the analytical jurisprudence. The primary objective of positivism is to provide conceptual analyses which identify code and distinguishes it from excessive abuse of power, customs, religion or morality by giving an acceptable rationalization of the nature of legal authority in a diverse society. Hart provides both the concepts of the law's social power and obligation to obey such acts by the citizens. Hart's view of jurisprudence is relevant in the contemporary image of law because it provides for features of political and social structure that is evident today.

Hart and Fuller's articles provide an excellent resource for natural law theory, legal positivism and the conception of the rule of law. The joinder of the issue between the two was heavily relied on in the case of the Grudge Informer, where the question was whether the validity of the law and the normative force were dependent on moral values (Lacey, 1066). Hart was of the view the only acceptable way of punishing Grudge Informer's conduct was through the application of the retroactive legislation as it was the morally superior law to apply. This prompted the question of what law is and what law ought to be. Hart provides that the rule of law's virtue is embedded in effective communication and demands of the particular law clearly stating what is legally required of citizens. Both Fuller and Hart agree on the natural theory of law, and their union raises questions of how far does morality influence the validity of the law. Fuller is, however, dissatisfied with Hart's over-reliance on philosophical methods and his disregard of social science approach (Fuller, 633).

The Complementary, Conceptual, Empirical and Moral Argument

Hart claims that it is up to citizens and law officials to evaluate the specifics of the law and not to blindly follow the state's announcement of something like the law that it ought to be obeyed. Hart implies that questions to be addressed are whether the law is valid or if it should be followed. Hart's claim led the German jurist, Gustav Radbruch to conclude in the Third Reich's case that understanding of the law was turning them into natural lawyers. Hart presents his ideas in an analytic truth based on the concepts of law and legality. Nicola Lacey's article, however, claims that Hart's account of positivism is embedded in the ethical approach. Hart argues that it is morally significant and preferable to exhaust the variety of reason in an ethical problem rather than claiming that something is not a law because initially, it ought not to have been law (Lacey, 1069). Hart criticizes Ronald Dworkin conclusion that judges are morally justified to lie about what the law requires avoiding the wrong inference and instead provides that a standard may be identified as law because of its clear positivist criteria (Dworkin, 23.)

Fuller, on the other hand, argues that "the process of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules-was informed by an inner morality of aspiration" (Lacey, 1070). Fuller's claim was based on the requirements that the law had to be coherent, and prospective and not retrospective (Fuller,650). Fuller's contribution is based on the need to provide form and substance in his elaboration of the principle of legality. Fuller claims that the inner morality of law defines the content of law in different systems and underpins the obligation to obey the law. Fuller claims that Hart's position refers to the connection between law and morality. Hart claims that judges deal with "penumbral" cases by reference to a "core" of settled meaning" (Lacey, 1071). Fuller, on the other hand, argues that this notion implies that the legal interpretation is clear cases amounts to a cataloging procedure. The joinder between Hart and Fuller states how moral criteria are used in the identification of valid laws and how legal reasoning is based on moral argument.

History of the Rule of Law

The early modern societies framed the political and legal dissent on matters of religion and conscience (Lacey, 1072). These early modern societies perfectly describe Fuller's natural law vision and a practical way that encouraged resistance against abuse of power. Next, Nicola Lacey argues that Fuller's natural law vision is a more practical way of supporting the mass to resist against the abuse of power. The historical analysis based on the use instead of the meaning of the rule of law defines the extent of the significance of law. Historical circumstances are embedded in the conceptions of concepts through the different ways and purposes in which the rule of law is invoked.

The interpretation of the legal requirements of law has changed over time due to human autonomy and entitlements. Nicole Lacey argues that philosophical debates especially those based on legal, moral and political philosophy always discuss pressing issues in society and not only the conceptual disagreements. This debate is not only based on the rule of law but explains the purpose, function, point and the social roles of law. The questions whether the positivist or naturalist concepts of law historically equips a society to resist against tyranny. The historical analysis focuses "the "use," rather than the "meaning," of the rule of law might modify our view of its contours and significance" (Lacey, 1073). The rule of law traces back to the Ancient Greek idea of the 'rule of law and not of men' (Lacey, 1073). The central paradigm of the rule of law signifies the regular constraints on political power and authority. The application of the rule of law in early modern England did not, however, reflect the operative concept of the rule of law and it did not imply the universal application of the law. The use of the rule of law presented great political contestation that took centuries to be established institutionally (Lacey, 1073). Nicole argues that Bentham articulated a coherent notion that tries to limit sovereignty while Hart defines the concept of the rule of in The Concept of Law.

These differences have helped shaped the normative theories of the rule of law illustrating how the systems have been revolutionized and reformed. History, however, has changed the definitions of clarity, arbitrary powers and certainty. These changes over history have led to the dual concepts of constraint and legitimization of Historical power understandings also provided that official actions should be congruent with the law which is slightly different in today's organized and professionalized criminal justice (Lacey, 1076). The concept of the rule of law in the 18th century in England differs from that of the 12th century because, in the 18th century, the conception of the rule of law established political conflicts that have shaped the modern constitution structures (Lacey, 1075.

The standards applied in the today's rule of law played an essential role in defining the modern reform movement of the 18th century. The state of the law was incorporated in a personalized model of sovereign authority-one in which the discretionary power of mercy was a core, rather than a penumbral, feature (La...