Fuller: The Inner Morality of Law

What is Fuller’s Core Argument?

• Rejects positivist separation between law and morality.

• Law has ‘inner morality’ consisting of procedural principles, necessary for law to function as law - to guide human conduct through rules.

• If a system radically departs from these principles - it is not merely bad law, but no law at all.

• Challenges Hart’s ‘law can be profoundly evil yet valid’ thesis.

What are the ‘eight principles of legality’

1. Generality.

2. Accessible.

3. Prescient.

4. Understandable.

5. Consistent.

6. Realistic to comply with.

7. No rapid changes.

8. Officials must apply the law as written.

These principles express the moral purpose of law - treating citizens as responsible agents who can plan their lives.

What is Hart’s position?

• Validity = social fact (rule of recognition)

• Moral evaluation = separate from identifying law.

• Wicked systems (Nazi law) remain law.

What is Fuller’s response to Hart’s position?

• System that abandon legality’s ‘inner morality’ fail as law.

• Nazi legality collapsed because legality’s conditions were destroyed.

What is the Key difference between Fuller & Hart’s positions?

• Hart: Validity is based on pedigree.

• Fuller: Validity is based on it’s faithfulness to legality.

Fuller’s morality of Aspiration v Moral Duty

• Inner morality is procedural, not substantive.

• Argues that law has a minimal moral form - doesn’t have to reflect virtue.

• Fuller is a procedural natural lawyer (compared to classical)

The Grudge Informer Case:

• Post-war courts needed to hold Nazi informers liable because legal standards had collapsed.

• Hart said judges should apply retroactive statutes honestly.

• Fuller said retroactivity was morally justified because the regime lacked legality.

What is the Key conceptual issue?

Is legality an internal moral test or a purely descriptive concept?

Strengths of Fuller’s ‘inner morality’ of law

• Shows why procedure matters for legitimacy.

• Explains breakdowns of totalitarian regimes.

• Protects rule of law without imposing substantive morality.

Weaknesses of Fuller’s ‘inner morality’ of law

• Does not guarantee justice; a procedurally perfect system can still oppress.

• Morality of law does not equal morality of outcomes.

• Hart: Fuller confuses efficiency of conditions with genuine morality.

Conclusion:

• Fuller conceives legality as moral enterprise grounding validity in the capacity of rules to guide conduct.

• By way, he challenges positivism’s separation thesis showing that law’s form contains inherent moral demands.

• Whether this constitutes genuine ‘morality’ or merely functional requirements remains the core faultline between Fuller & Hart.