Philosophy of Law: Views of Hart and Fuller

Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Title
Instructor's Details
Assignment Due Date
PHIL OF LAW.
1.A putative law that could demonstrate the differing views between Hart and Fuller is a law requiring all citizens to wear seat belts while driving a car. In this hypothetical scenario, the law is stated in written form, but there is no clear enforcement mechanism and no punishment for those who violate the law.
Hart, who believed in the separation of law and morality, would argue that this law is a valid law because it has the key features of a legal system. According to Hart, a legal system is made up of a set of rules that are general, consistent and are backed by the authority of the sovereign. In this scenario, the seat belt law is a rule, is stated in written form, and is backed by the authority of the sovereign, and as such, Hart would consider it to be a valid law.
On the other hand, Fuller would argue that this law is not legally valid because it lacks what he calls the "inner morality of law". Fuller believed that for a law to be legally valid, it must fulfill eight minimum criteria, including having a clear and ascertainable content, being consistent with itself and with other laws, and providing guidance for citizens on how to act. In the case of the seat belt law, the lack of clear enforcement and punishment would mean that it fails to meet Fuller's criteria for legality, and as such, he would consider it not to be a legally valid law.
Furthermore, Hart believed that judicial discretion is an inevitable part of any legal system. There will always be cases that are not clearly settled by either the written or the common law, and as such, there will be a need for judicial discretion in order to adapt the law to changing circumstances and to make decisions in cases where the written law is unclear.
In contrast, Dworkin believed that there is no such thing as judicial discretion, as all cases can be decided based on the existing legal materials. According to Dworkin, judicial decisions should be based on a moral principle of fairness, and the judge's role is to interpret the law in a way that is consistent with this principle. In other words, Dworkin believed that there is no room for judicial discretion in a legal system, as all cases can be decided based on the existing legal materials.
In conclusion, Hart and Fuller would have different views on the putative seat belt law and the legal system in this hypothetical scenario because of their differing views on the criteria for legal validity and the role of judicial discretion in a legal system. Hart would see the seat belt law as a valid law because it has the key features of a legal system, while Fuller would argue that it is not legally valid because it does not meet his criteria for legality. Additionally, Hart would see judicial discretion as a necessary component of a legal system, while Dw...