Morality Of Law Analysis

2053 Words5 Pages

Fuller’s perception of law as a moral enterprise, demands that a system adhere to the eight desiderata , he calls “the inner morality of law.” Despite being “a procedural version of natural law,” indifferent to laws substantive morality, Fuller argues that for externally moral law to exist, fulfilment of the inner morality, expressed by principles of procedural justice, is required, since the internal and external moralities of law, “reciprocally influence one another.”
In an attempt to prove that the desiderata are intrinsically moral and that ‘wicked laws can destroy a legal system’, Fuller invokes upon the moral values enshrined within law itself.
Declaring law to be a “purposeful enterprise” subjecting humanity to the control of rules, law produces social order which involves respecting human autonomy and commitment to the view of man as a “responsible agent” able to abide by rules; A legislator embracing this view will refrain from insulting human dignity by departing from these principles. Even if we just want law as order, rather than law as good order, there is a ‘morality of order’ which must be met, or else legal order would not be possible.
Portraying law as a reciprocal affair involving a governmental command to the citizens and a governmental commitment to judge citizens according to these rules, loyalty to the precepts ensures that the duties imposed are that to which citizens will be held accountable. Increasing the law’s legitimacy in the population’s eyes, the principles guarantee that the law can be followed, reducing the possibility of sanction for a breach the subject was oblivious to. Providing “dependable guideposts for self-directed action,” and a legal system of fair opportunity, the Ful...

... middle of paper ...

...ns’ dignity, as evidence of the legal commands entailing a respect for the individual’s capacity for autonomous decision making. Nevertheless, to say that commands constitute a moral respect for its subjects is to suggest that a burglar’s instruction to his victim, to decide whether to obey or be shot, constitutes acknowledgment of his autonomy. “Rules can be general whilst choking the liberty of the people subject to them,” and therefore Fuller’s notion of law as a moral enterprise, pursuing moral ends is questionable.
When faced with Positivist criticism, the supposition that ‘wicked laws can destroy a legal system,’ is difficult to pledge allegiance to. Fuller’s inability to defend his position convincingly, renders it deserving of condemnation as an “untenable doctrine,” incorrect in its claim that systems of ‘moral turpitude’ have no legal system at all.

Open Document