Lon Fuller's Last Precept Analysis
Lon Fuller had postulated that in a legal system, which is sound and functioning properly, a number of different precepts can be observed i.e. The precepts of legality (commonly known as the rule of Law). These rules can broadly be said to be
• General
• Publicized
• Prospective and not retrospective in nature
• Lucid
• Not contradicting each other
• Should not be impossible to follow
• Stable and not subject to wanton amendments
• Adhered to by the government
It is Fuller’s last precept that has been the subject of conflict regarding whether there is any moral value in following it and is a ruler is following it, what is it that he expects out of following it?
Expanding on the last precept, it can be said to mean that a government will only follow the law and the punishment laid down by law while punishing a subject for his transgression, no punishment above and beyond what is prescribed by the law will be given and no one will be punished without committing a crime.
Simmonds being a naturalist attributes a moral dimension to the adherence of this precept.
For Fuller and Simmonds, the moral value of adhering to it lies in the way doing so, guarantees to the citizens a degree of law and uniformity while also maintaining the image of justice being done along with the fact that it acts as a …show more content…
According to him, the nature of the reasons why leaders choose to abide by the rule of law is crucial to elucidate whether the principles of legality have a moral dimension or they are nothing but instruments to achieve effective control. In his book In Defense of Legal Positivism, he says it is necessary to examine the reasons why rulers choose to abide by the principles of Legality, if they are purely because of moral reasons then Simmonds is correct in attributing a moral dimension in to Legality however the moment a ruler abides by the rules for purely prudential reasons then Simmonds’s thesis
• General
• Publicized
• Prospective and not retrospective in nature
• Lucid
• Not contradicting each other
• Should not be impossible to follow
• Stable and not subject to wanton amendments
• Adhered to by the government
It is Fuller’s last precept that has been the subject of conflict regarding whether there is any moral value in following it and is a ruler is following it, what is it that he expects out of following it?
Expanding on the last precept, it can be said to mean that a government will only follow the law and the punishment laid down by law while punishing a subject for his transgression, no punishment above and beyond what is prescribed by the law will be given and no one will be punished without committing a crime.
Simmonds being a naturalist attributes a moral dimension to the adherence of this precept.
For Fuller and Simmonds, the moral value of adhering to it lies in the way doing so, guarantees to the citizens a degree of law and uniformity while also maintaining the image of justice being done along with the fact that it acts as a …show more content…
According to him, the nature of the reasons why leaders choose to abide by the rule of law is crucial to elucidate whether the principles of legality have a moral dimension or they are nothing but instruments to achieve effective control. In his book In Defense of Legal Positivism, he says it is necessary to examine the reasons why rulers choose to abide by the principles of Legality, if they are purely because of moral reasons then Simmonds is correct in attributing a moral dimension in to Legality however the moment a ruler abides by the rules for purely prudential reasons then Simmonds’s thesis