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, Appearing in 1958 in the Harvard Law Review, Hart Look 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. In this debate Hart contended that there is no necessary need for the idea of morality to be in the legal system and he contended that a legal system would work effectively without the a big involvement of morality The Nazi regime would be a good example of this point. It discriminated against individuals on racial grounds. In Hart‘s View it was a legal system The Nazis argued that racial distinctions were relevant and reflected the morality of their society, It was, therefore entitled to discriminate and still claim it was treating like cases alikei.
Take another example of the Arab world particularly the Saudi Government where the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice are responsible on enforcing moral codes such as strict dress codes and prohibition of consuming alcohol which the Saudi Government had imprisoned European for the consumption alcohols Such powers where given to the Saudi Moral Police to enforce their moral which are discriminatory in nature. There are cases of moral police discriminate against woman in March 11, 2002, where schoolgirls are prevented from escaping their burning school because they are not wearing headscarves and not accompanied by a male guardian. This example shows the damage that can happen when morality and law is combined. In this debate, Fuller (Natural Law theorist) maintains that law and morality cannot be so neatly distinguished and that the post-war courts were entitled to hold Nazi rules not to be law.
To call the Nazi system ‘legal’ and to call its rules laws‘ was a false description of what they were. They were instmments of an arbitrary and tyrannical regime. In conclusion, I support Hart’s position that morality should not be fully used in a legal system to ensure a legal system is equal without any enforcement of morally fueled legislation which could discriminate the society as demonstrated by the Nazi regime and the Saudi moral police. Hart, on the other hand, argued that law and morality are separate domains and that law should not be judged based on its conformity to moral principles. He argued that the law is a social institution that serves a particular function, and it should be evaluated based on its effectiveness in achieving that function. According to him, the law’s purpose is to provide a framework for social coordination, and it need not necessarily promote moral principles.
Fuller responded to Hart’s argument by pointing out that if law is not connected to moral principles, then it risks becoming arbitrary and unjust. He believed that the inner morality of the law is what distinguishes law from mere coercion, and without that moral foundation, the law loses its legitimacy. Hart, in turn, argued that Fuller’s approach risks making the law overly moralistic and rigid, which can lead to legalism and injustice. According to him, the law must be able to adapt to changing circumstances and social norms, and it should not be bound by fixed moral principles. The debate between Fuller and Hart remains influential in legal philosophy and has had a lasting impact on the way that scholars think about the nature of law and its relationship to morality. While there is no clear consensus on the issue, many legal philosophers today acknowledge the importance of both approaches and seek to strike a balance between the inner morality of the law and its social function
