Law (Essay Sample)

Fuller's account of the 'inner morality of law' The concept of the 'inner morality of law' proposed by legal philosopher Lon Fuller has garnered significant attention and critique within the field. While Fuller's account seeks to establish a deep connection between law and morality, it is widely considered flawed for two key reasons. This essay aims to critically examine Fuller's account, highlighting its flaws and providing alternative perspectives on the separability of law and morality. Fuller proposes an inherent moral dimension exists within the law which he refers to as the 'inner morality’ (Fuller, 1964). According to him, this inner morality enables individuals to guide their actions in accordance with principles inherent in legal systems. He argues that the law cannot be divorced from moral values; instead, they are inherently intertwined (Stanguello, 2018). One significant flaw in Fuller's account is his focus on demonstrating what is good about law rather than acknowledging its potential shortcomings or limitations (Dworkin, 1986). By adopting this approach, Fuller undermines the separability of law and morality by essentially assuming that all laws are inherently good. To illustrate this point further, a hypothetical scenario can be used where a repressive regime enacts discriminatory laws against a particular ethnic group (Harris, 2011). Under Fuller's account, these discriminatory laws would still be considered morally justifiable as long as they fulfill some internal criteria such as clarity or generality (Fuller, 1964). However, it becomes evident that overlooking the content or ethical implications of specific laws erodes any meaningful distinction between legality and immorality. Another flaw in Fuller's account lies in its underdevelopment regarding what constitutes 'good' within the legal system itself. While he emphasizes principles such as legality and fairness as essential elements of the inner morality of law, his framework fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of what makes law good (Stanguello, 2018). For instance, Fuller's account does not adequately address the impact of unjust or oppressive laws on individuals and society. By neglecting to account for the broader societal consequences of legal systems, his concept fails to acknowledge that laws can potentially perpetuate social injustices rather than promoting moral values (Atlas, 2003). Furthermore, alternative theories such as Ronald Dworkin's interpretive approach offer a more nuanced view of what constitutes goodness within the law (Dworkin, 1986). Dworkin argues that legal principles should be grounded in ethical considerations and fairness, while also acknowledging that interpretation is an integral part of any legal system. This perspective allows for a deeper exploration of how law can reflect moral values without compromising its distinctiveness from morality. On the contrary, a potential counterargument against these critiques is that Fuller's concept offers a practical framework for analyzing the internal consistency and coherence of legal systems. However, it is important to note that while internal consistency is indeed crucial in ensuring the effectiveness of legal rules, it should not serve as the sole criterion for determining their ethical value (Dworkin, 1986). It must be emphasized that assessing laws solely based on their internal criteria neglects their real-world implications and potential harm they may cause. The negative consequences resulting from unjust or discriminatory laws cannot be overlooked merely because they meet certain formalistic requirements (Atlas, 2003). Moreover, proponents may argue that Fuller's account provides stability and predictability within legal systems by emphasizing clarity and certainty. While these qualities are undoubtedly essential for maintaining order and facilitating compliance with the law, they do not automatically justify or validate morally questionable legislation. Alternative perspectives such as H.L.A Hart's separation thesis presents contrasting viewpoints regarding the separability between law and morality. According to Hart, there exists a clear distinction between 'legal' obligations, enforceable through sanctions, and 'moral' obligations which arise from personal beliefs or social norms (Hart, 1994). This perspective acknowledges that law and morality can operate independently of each other. This viewpoint has also been shared by one of the most influential legal philosophers of the 20th century, Joseph Raz. Raz’s theory of exclusive positivism inherently claims that the law cannot incorporate moral principles and is merely a result of social facts (Raz, 1979). A law is able to hold its authority as it has gone through a strict process and eventually passed by congress; it cannot categorically be stated that this law had a moral component which led to its enactment. If subjects begin to decipher what the law wants them to do through moral reasoning, there would be no s...