East West University

Assainment.
Law 302
Course Name: jurisprudence
Assainment Topic :
Why do I like Loan Luvois Fuller?
Date: 03-01-2022

Sbumitted by:
Name: Sumaiya Akter
Roll : 2021-1-66-017
Semester : Fall2021
LLB (hon’s)

Directed by:
Sayeed Hossain Sarwar
 Why do I like Loan Luvois Fuller?

Lon Luvois Fuller, an American legal philosopher (June 15, 1902 – April 8, 1978), defended a
secular and procedural interpretation of natural law theory and opposed legal positivism. Fuller spent
many years instructing law at Harvard University. For his contributions to jurisprudence and the law
of contracts, he is well-known in American law. The current conflict between legal positivism and
natural law theory was helped to frame by his Harvard Law Review debate with renowned British
legal theorist H. L. A. Hart in 1958. Fuller advances the case that all legal systems have a "internal
morality" that presumes that people have an obligation to comply in his widely debated book The
Morality of Law from 1964. RS S. Robert.

Biography : Fuller was born in Hereford, Texas, and obtained a law degree from Stanford. He
started out in academia, teaching at the University of Oregon School of Law. Richard M. Nixon, the
future president, was a student at Duke University Law School, where he later served as an instructor.
He enrolled in Harvard Law School in 1940. At Harvard, he held the Carter Chair of Jurisprudence
from 1948 until his retirement in 1972. Additionally, he practiced law with the Boston legal office
Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge & Rugg.Fuller passed away in his Cambridge, Massachusetts, home at
the age of 75. His wife Marjorie, his two stepchildren, professors F. Brock Fuller and Cornelia F.
Hopfield, both of Altadena, California, and professor William D. survived him.

Hart and Fuller Debate:

Hla Hart’s view: Being a positivist, Hart rejects the idea that morality and law are inseparable.
While acknowledging the relationship between morality and law, he does not deny that morality has
had a significant impact on the development of law. But he doesn't think they are interdependent. As
a result, he believes it is necessary to distinguish between what is right and what is right. The status
of law as law is not affected by moral objections. That's still the case. According to Hart, cops need
to uphold the law conscientiously, focusing on what you say, not what you want to say.
Fuller's view: Fuller is a naturalist and sees law as a way to achieve social order by regulating
human behavior through law. He believes that our legal system derives from a code of laws that has a
moral dimension. (i) regulated (ii) publicly available (iii) forward-looking (iv) understandable (v)
dispute-free (vi) compliant (vii) stable over time ( viii) Publicly supported officials. Fuller urges
legislators to consider each of the above items before deciding whether the law is in effect. Fuller
describes morality in his two categories. Ethics of rights and ethics of duties. A morality of effort
proposes desirable norms of human behavior that promote human well-being. Moral laws set
standards that people must follow in order for society to function smoothly. Other forms of morality
that Fuller discussed are "morality in law" and "morality outside law." The former deals with the
legislative process, while the latter focuses on the substantive legal norms that govern decision-
making.

Examining Hart and Fuller's views on what law is and how it relates to morality, we find that Fuller's
naturalistic ideals provide most of the solutions to the problems of the modern legal system. You can
see that I understand. As an example of this, Hart says there is a need for clarity as to what the law is
and what the law should be, but the question remains.
"Why follow the law?" Is it because of the sanctions behind it? Or do you accept? As Heart believed.
Do we refrain from rape without punishment? Or do we obey the law because it is the most
convenient and fair way to organize our society? You will get different answers. On the one hand, I
believe the law is right or morally right, so I believe we can follow the law. If the state deems it
immoral, are you obligated to obey its laws? Examples of these states are:
South Africa's apartheid laws and Germany's Nazi laws. These were all legitimate laws passed by
their respective parliaments. But did these laws have moral authority? To answer this question, we
focus on Nazi law and apply Hart and Fuller's views above to see if there is a relationship between
law and morality.