The Law, Morality And Fear Or Threat By Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart Essay

PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should

In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. (Robertson, Crimes against humanity, 90).Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common jurisdictions.

Throughout history laws have been in place to restore or keep order in society. Some laws are put into place to protect while some laws are made to punish. No matter the purpose, laws are put in place with the expectation they will be followed.

Within Classical Theory, the focus was on the law to protect the rights of individuals and society and its purpose was to deter criminal behavior. Classical law assumes it is the duty of the citizen to be moral, act responsibly, and weigh consequences of behavior before acting. This of course, supposes that all acts are rational, and each act committed is done as a result of free will.

The biggest difference between the writings of Austin and Hart might be that the former while setting the framework for a plausible theory, fails to elaborate on its most basic premises. Hart expanded on legal positivism by enhancing the theory suggested by Austin and making it more credible, all while debunking natural law theory. One example is the manner in which Austin argues that the concept of law is subject to the command of a higher authority backed by threats. Although this is a way in which law can be presented, it is also a simplistic definition. Hart argues that although Austin’s definition of the law might be applicable to criminal law, it fails to justify other variants of legal process such as contracts or marriage licenses. He argues that “Such laws do not impose duties or obli­gations. Instead, they provide individuals with facilities for realizing their wishes, by conferring legal powers upon them to create, by certain specified procedures and subject to certain (p. 27)” It is difficult to associate laws such as the ones concerning marriage to the idea of a command backed by threat. The differentiation between laws that grant liberties when compared to those that might take them away is something that is not taken into account by Austin or explored in depth by natural law theorists such as Aquinas.

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.

H.L.A. Hart first takes issue with John Austin first point. John Austin believed in a many species of commands. Hart disagrees with Austin’s statement completely. Hart believes that the idea that the law consists only of directives and orders which are followed by possible punishments do not help to explain the current legal systems. Hart finds value in the type of laws called “power conferring rules.” The rules offer less threats and actually establish a framework for which citizen can understand and define their individual rights and obligations they have. Hart also considers other types of laws. Hart views laws that are established to identify the limitation and the powers of the judicial and legislative branches. He argues that it is impossible to view these laws as mere orders backed by threats

This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.

The idea of human dignity has been remarked and articulated in a number of the jurisprudence works of the mid-twentieth American legal philosopher, Lon L. Fuller. The Morality of Law, for instance, provides a valuable snapshot of Fuller’s preliminary sense of what his idea on human dignity might entail. In the core of his argument of legal morality, Fuller proposes that any neglect of eight principles of legality, which constitutes the internal morality of law, is not just only render the rational ground to obey the law and destroy the trusteeship between lawgiver and subject, but it further condemns and humiliates the dignity of person or human being as a free and responsible agent, self-determining center of action, and that they possess inherent dignity. In other important text, Fuller explicitly announces that the value of human dignity, over other extra-legal values, that must embodied within the structure of legal order. After he offers a long discussion of human capacity of action and communication under the forms of order, he writes: “ there is, therefore, in an ordered system of law, formulated and administered conscientiously, a certain built-in respect for human dignity, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that this respect will tend to carry over into the substantive ends of law.” Thirdly, in his draft essay Means and Ends, which can be considered both as an introductory of Fuller’s eunmoics theory of social order and Fuller’s reflection on the

rule that one ought to go to the cinema on a Saturday night. There can

In his critique of Austin’s work, Hart believes that in making coercion and sanction a central component of the nature of law, Austin imagines a world filled with “bad men”, a term introduced by Oliver Wendell Holmes to describe a person who is more concerned with avoiding the adverse consequences of disobedience of the law (or using Hart’s terminology, a person taking an external point of view). However, Austin overlooks the fact that most people in a society could be considered “puzzled men”, which describes a person who is prepared to comply with the law, as long as they are told what they have to do (or again using Hart’s terminology, a person taking an internal point of view). Therefore, Hart maintains that Austin’s account of the nature of law overlooks the fact that most people take an internal point of view towards the rules. The majority of people do not take into account the sanctions that may befall them if they do not comply; they simply comply because they see the law as a reason to modify their behaviour.

Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law

According to Reference.com (2007), law is defined as: “rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct.” Essentially law is the rules and regulations that aid in governing conduct,