Vijayalakshmi, Christ (Deemed to be) University
ABSTRACT
The development of legal philosophy has been marked by an “oscillation of extremes.” At one extreme are the people who view the law as a branch of morality and believe that a law's authority dwells on its adherence to moral principles. On the other end of the spectrum are the people who support the command and predictive theories of law. In an effort to strike a balance between these two extremes, Hart offers a theory of law that is both normative and positivist. Hart being a positivist, rejects the idea that morality and the law are inextricably linked. While he does accept that morality and law have a close relationship, he also does not deny that morality has had a significant impact on how the law has evolved. As a result, he believes that there should be a distinction made between what law ought to be and what law should be. Fuller being a naturalist, views laws as a means of establishing social order by disciplining human conduct. He contends that law must pass a certain moral function test in order to be considered legitimate. In order to better clarify morality, Fuller divides it into two categories: the morality of aspiration and the morality of duty. Hart and Fuller have two contrasting perspectives regarding the connection between morality and law. The Hart- Fuller argument highlights the conflict between positivist and naturalist legal theories over the place of morality in the law.
Keywords: Legal Philosophy, Normative Law, Positive Law, Morality, Debate
