Hart-Fuller and Hart-Devlin Debates: Law and Morality
Exam Snapshot
These debates are central to jurisprudence. Distinguish between Hart-Fuller (Law vs. Morality validity) and Hart-Devlin (Harm Principle vs. Moralism).
Core Concept
1. Hart-Fuller Debate (1958)
- Issue: Can an immoral law be valid?
- Hart (Positivist): Yes. Validity depends on the source, not morality (Separation Thesis).
- Fuller (Natural Law): No. Law requires "inner morality" (procedural fairness). Without it, it is not law.
2. Hart-Devlin Debate (1959-1965)
- Issue: Should law enforce private morality?
- Devlin (Moralist): Yes. Shared morality is essential for social cohesion.
- Hart (Liberal): No. Law should only intervene to prevent harm to others (Harm Principle).
Nepal Law Anchors
- Constitution of Nepal: Due process and individual liberty (Art. 16, 20) align with the liberal/Hartian view of limited state intervention.
- Muluki Criminal Code 2074: Generally criminalizes acts causing tangible harm, supporting the Harm Principle.
Confusable Terms
| Debate | Core Dispute |
|---|---|
| Hart-Fuller | Validity (Source vs. Inner Morality) |
| Hart-Devlin | Enforcement (Harm Principle vs. Moralism) |
MCQ Traps
- Trap: Assuming Hart holds the same view in both debates. He is a Positivist in the first (validity), but a Liberal in the second (harm principle).
Example
Hart-Fuller: A dictator passes a bad law. Hart: Valid (if enacted). Fuller: Invalid (lacks inner morality). Hart-Devlin: Devlin: Criminalize acts to preserve social moral fabric. Hart: No, only criminalize if they cause harm.
Memory Hook
- Fuller = Form/Fairness (Procedural).
- Devlin = Defending public morality.
Quick Revision
- Hart-Fuller: Validity (Positivism vs Natural Law).
- Hart-Devlin: Enforcement (Harm Principle vs Moralism).