What is the inner morality of law as a necessary connection between morality and law? Hart says law is about rules and trying to guide we’re people’s conduct through those rules Therefore, citizens need to Understand the rules Be able to comply with the rules must be perspective (no ex post facto) These are NOT just facts about guiding human behavior, they’re also connected with the moral aspect of the rule of law and the moral constitutional concepts of the U.S. like “Due Process” Lon Fuller says that these 3 rules are the inner morality of law Basically, the rules we use to guide human behavior have a moral concept built into them Must publish the rules and make them clear for people to understand Response to Fuller Hart’s Hart is willing to concede that there is some connection between law and morality, but is unfortunately compatible with very “it great iniquity (evil)” Hart is thinking about of Law “Rule Nazis” can publish rules that are understandable and Nazi’s perspective Imagine how many evil legal systems can adhere to the rule of law and due process But again, Hart want to deny that there is some doesn’t connection between law and morality (I.e., how moral values might influence legislation or judicial interpretation, etc.) He STRONGLY denies that an law can still be “unjust a - just wrong law” that’s The idea that validity turns on morality is law’s mistaken Legal Validity and Resistance to Law law is not a “Unjust law” Hart will not concede that there is such a connection between law and morality such than an unjust law is not a law The thought that legal validity turns on morality is completely wrong Hart is saying that this is a contradiction Before you said it was unjust, you called it a law We get the most clarity if we reject this proposition and say unjust “An law is a law that is and think about the first statement as a matter unjust” of ethics Legal validity turns on the rule of recognition, not morality A social group accepts the union of primary and secondary rules, those rules are valid under the rule of recognition (if they meet the criteria) - how we know something is a law or not as matter of positive law that’s
What is the inner morality of law as a necessary connection between morality and law? Hart says law is about rules and we’re trying to guide people’s conduct through those rules Therefore, citizens need to Understand the rules Be able to comply with the rules must be perspective (no ex post facto) These are NOT just facts about guiding human behavior, they’re also connected with the moral aspect of the rule of law and the moral constitutional concepts of the U.S. like “Due Process” Lon Fuller says that these 3 rules are the inner morality of law Basically, the rules we use to guide human behavior have a moral concept built into them Must publish the rules and make them clear for people to understand Hart’s Response to Fuller Hart is willing to concede that there is some connection between law and morality, but “it is unfortunately compatible with very great iniquity (evil)” Hart is thinking about “Rule of Law Nazis” Nazi’s can publish rules that are understandable and perspective Imagine how many evil legal systems can adhere to the rule of law and due process But again, Hart doesn’t want to deny that there is some connection between law and morality (I.e., how moral values might influence legislation or judicial interpretation, etc.) He STRONGLY denies that an “unjust law can still be a law” - that’s just wrong The idea that law’s validity turns on morality is mistaken Legal Validity and Resistance to Law “Unjust law is not a law” Hart will not concede that there is such a connection between law and morality such than an unjust law is not a law The thought that legal validity turns on morality is completely wrong Hart is saying that this is a contradiction Before you said it was unjust, you called it a law We get the most clarity if we reject this proposition and say “An unjust law is a law that is unjust” and think about the first statement as a matter of ethics Legal validity turns on the rule of recognition, not morality A social group accepts the union of primary and secondary rules, those rules are valid under the rule of recognition (if they meet the criteria) - that’s how we know something is a law or not as matter of positive law