This week’s class included a discussion based on the famous debate between HLA Hart and Lon Fuller about the validity of Nazi-era laws. Hart defended the positivist approach, while Fuller’s position was informed by natural legal theory.
Food for thought:
This is a two-part question.
1. Write a post that takes a stand on the Hart-Fuller debate. You will need to explain which position (Hart’s or Fuller’s) is more persuasive and why. Remember: This is a public-facing blog, so your post should also provide enough descriptive and explanatory content for it to be understandable to a public audience.
2. Explain what is at stake in the Hart-Fuller debate. Why does this debate matter? What are the implications of accepting one stance vs. the other? You can approach this question in relation to the specific case that Hart and Fuller were discussing, but remember that this case was an opportunity for them to have a broader discussion about positivist and natural legal perspectives.
Feel free to refer to excerpts from the Hart-Fuller poster distributed in class.
Posts prepared in response to this question should be submitted before 19:00 on October 2.