Lon Luvois Fuller and His Contribution to Law

Lon L. Fuller was an American legal philosopher and Professor who is widely known for his remarkable contribution in the field of legal and moral theory through his ruthless criticism of the positive theory of law and defense of natural theory of law. Moreover, while condemning the legal positivism he indulged in a fierce debate with the eminent British Scholar H.L.A. Hart of the $\mathrm{20^{th}}$ century, which was published in the Harvard Law Review and contributed extensively not only to his fame but also to legal history.

Life and Teaching Career (1902 − 1978)

Lon Fuller was born in Texas and received his degree of law from the Stanford University of US. He was always keen on teaching and had a great amount of passion for legal philosophy therefore, he started his career as Professor of Law and delivered lectures in the Universities of Oregon, Duke and Harvard, wherein he also held the Chair of Jurisprudence. Additionally, he practices law in several reputed American firms as an Attorney.

Henceforth, Fuller was a lawyer interested in legal philosophy rather than simply a philosopher interested in law, thus, he was a well−known person both in the academic and practical arenas for his remarkable thesis and lectures which dealt with the theoretical and practicalities of law and helped both the philosophers and lawyers.

Revived the Natural Theory

Fuller was a distinguished philosopher of $\mathrm{20^{th}}$ century America as he revived the Natural Theory of Law in response to the dominance of Legal realism and positivism which he denied completely through his writings.

He criticized the Legal Positivism and Realism’ internal belief and basic principle that law and morality are two different jurisprudences and cannot be intertwined. Instead, Fuller argued that law and morality cannot be separated from each other as every law has some amount of morality in itself which compels people to ensure obedience as not all the laws are followed due to fear of punishment and not all laws have the sanction of the state. Fuller claimed that there is a kind of fairness as a moral value in all the laws as they are formulated for the benefit of mankind therefore, the natural instincts of humans impose a moral duty on them to obey the laws.

Principles of Legality

Fuller believed that there are certain moral standards which are intrinsic to a law and without which a law cannot count as genuine law. In order to support his argument, he also came up with eight guidelines known as the "Principles of Legality," which he said were necessary for a law to follow in all situations in order to be legitimate and consistent with moral principles.

The principles as formulated by Fuller required a law to be general, public, prospective, coherent, clear, stable, practicable and possible to be obeyed. Thus, these principles are basically the procedural aspects of the law which he found indispensable to law−making owing to his belief that if a law framed with all its forms and procedure then a government in accordance with Rule of Law is established.

His purpose of drafting these principles was to close the gap between positivism and morality to ensure justice along with law because it was observed by numerous positivist theorists that even if a law can be unjust and disobeyed even if it is drafted in the most cultured manner. Thus, Fuller sought to deal with the procedural paucities to make the law complete and self−sufficient in itself without any need of sanction and fear of punishment for its administration and enforcement.

Fuller’s Thesis

The following are the major thesis of L.L. Fuller:

• The Morality of Law

• Legal Fictions

• Problems of Jurisprudence

• Basic Contract Law

• Anatomy of Law

Conclusion

Lon L. Fuller was a revolutionary exponent of 20th century’s American Jurisprudence who revived the traditional natural school of law while humanizing it with the contemporary trends and a rational criticism of the positivism and realism for their idealistic beliefs. Fuller’s theory met with a stern criticism from H.L.A. Hart, however, his theory still holds a great amount of relevance for contributing in the modern legal jurisprudence with a new approach which encouraged the development of practically applicable philosophies and generic law−making procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who was Lon L. Fuller?

Ans: Lon L. Fuller (1902−1978) was an American legal philosopher and scholar, known for his significant contributions to jurisprudence and legal theory.

Q: What is Lon L. Fuller best known for?

Ans: Fuller is best known for his work on the concept of the "inner morality of law" and the idea of the "rule of law."

Q: Why H.L.A. Hart is considered a critic of Fuller?

Ans: H.L.A. Hart was an eminent positivist of the 20th century and a contemporary of Fuller, he criticized his work for its idealistic perception that once a law possesses the eight principles of legality it would be sufficient in all aspects, as Hart argued that the principles only have instrumental significance as they only provide guidance in formulation of law and does not deal with application and obedience of law in governance. Hence, he questioned the basic principle of Fuller’s whole jurisprudence in a commendable method.

Q: Which work of Fuller is known for his famous Principles of Legality?

Ans: Fuller formulated his principles of legality in his book “The Morality of Law” wherein he provides a critique of positivism and found a connection between the Rule of Law and Natural Theory of Law as well.

Q: What is the "inner morality of law" according to Fuller?

Ans: The concept of the "inner morality of law," introduced by Fuller in his book "The Morality of Law" (1964), refers to the idea that for a legal system to be just and legitimate, its rules must possess certain qualities, such as clarity, consistency, and being applied retroactively.

Q: What is the "rule of law" as proposed by Fuller?

Ans: Fuller's understanding of the "rule of law" emphasizes that laws should be general, public, clear, non−retroactive, and consistent. He argued that these principles are essential for a legal system to maintain its legitimacy and moral authority.

Q: How did Fuller's ideas differ from legal positivism?

Ans: Fuller's ideas differed from legal positivism, a theory that emphasizes the separation of law and morality. Fuller's "inner morality of law" suggests that morality is inherent in legal systems and is crucial for their legitimacy.

Q: What were some of Fuller's other notable works?

Ans: In addition to "The Morality of Law," Fuller wrote "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers" (1949), a fictional legal case that presents various jurisprudential theories, and "Anatomy of the Law" (1968), a collection of essays exploring legal philosophy.

Q: How did Fuller view the relationship between law and morality?

Ans: Fuller believed that law and morality are closely connected. He argued that legal systems must embody moral principles to maintain their legitimacy and to ensure that they serve the interests of justice.

Q: What was Fuller's academic background and career?

Ans: Fuller studied law at Harvard Law School and later taught at various institutions, including Harvard Law School and the University of Chicago Law School. He had a distinguished academic career as a legal scholar and philosopher.

Q: How did Fuller's work influence legal thought?

Ans: Fuller's work significantly influenced discussions about the nature of law, the role of morality in legal systems, and the principles that contribute to the legitimacy of laws. His ideas have had a lasting impact on jurisprudence and legal philosophy.

Q: What was Fuller's stance on legal interpretation?

Ans: Fuller believed that legal interpretation should aim to fulfill the underlying purpose and spirit of the law. He argued against mechanical or overly literal interpretations that might undermine the moral and practical objectives of the legal system.