Hart-Fuller debate
Encyclopedia
The Hart-Fuller debate is an exchange between Lon Fuller and H.L.A. Hart published in the Harvard Law Review
in 1958 on morality and law, which demonstrated the divide between the positivist and natural law
philosophy. Appearing in 1958 in the Harvard Law Review, Hart took the positivist view in arguing that morality and law were separate. Fuller's reply argued for morality as the source of law's binding power.
The natural law view believes that the creation of law should be based on natural laws or common morals. Laws are viewed based on purpose, not on meaning of the words. In the vehicle in the park example above, Fuller would say that it would depend on the purpose for banning vehicles from the park. For example, if the purpose were to prevent noise pollution, a bicycle would not be a vehicle for the purposes of the law. Because of this focus on purpose instead of meaning, a judge using a natural law interpretation of statutes relies much more heavily on legislative history.
Harvard Law Review
The Harvard Law Review is a journal of legal scholarship published by an independent student group at Harvard Law School.-Overview:According to the 2008 Journal Citation Reports, the Review is the most cited law review and has the second-highest impact factor in the category "law" after the...
in 1958 on morality and law, which demonstrated the divide between the positivist and natural law
Natural law
Natural law, or the law of nature , is any system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law Natural...
philosophy. Appearing in 1958 in the Harvard Law Review, Hart took the positivist view in arguing that morality and law were separate. Fuller's reply argued for morality as the source of law's binding power.
Philosophy
Positivists believe in a separation between the law as it is and the law as it should be. Legal rights and moral rights are not related, beyond mere coincidence. Hart believes the method of deciding cases through logic or deduction is not necessarily wrong, just as not necessarily right to decide cases according to social or moral aims. Hart uses the problem of "the core and the penumbra" to illustrate the idea that laws must be related to the meaning of the words, not any natural or moral belief. A "core" case would be one that the statute is intended to cover. In the classic example, a statute that bans vehicles from a park obviously is intended to cover cars. A "penumbra" case would be one not considered by the creators of the law, such as a skateboard in the example above. A judge interpreting such a law from a positivist viewpoint would look to a definition of the words of the statute.The natural law view believes that the creation of law should be based on natural laws or common morals. Laws are viewed based on purpose, not on meaning of the words. In the vehicle in the park example above, Fuller would say that it would depend on the purpose for banning vehicles from the park. For example, if the purpose were to prevent noise pollution, a bicycle would not be a vehicle for the purposes of the law. Because of this focus on purpose instead of meaning, a judge using a natural law interpretation of statutes relies much more heavily on legislative history.