A Debate on the Purpose of Law: The Hart and Fuller Conflict

This article aims to examine the Hart–Fuller debateone of the most striking intellectual confrontations in XX. century legal philosophy through the lens of the “purpose of law.” H. L. A. Hart, a leading representative of contemporary legal positivism, conceptualizes law as a system of norms whose validity is grounded in social facts and the position of rules within the legal system, independent of moral evaluations. In contrast, Lon L. Fuller, who reinterprets the natural law tradition in a modern context, defines law as a purposive enterprise based on an internal moral structure, capable of guiding human behavior. The views of Hart, who defines law as a normative system, and Fuller, who considers it a moral and purposive order, reflect a profound theoretical divergence concerning the nature, validity, and legitimacy of law. The opposition between Hart’s understanding of legal validity and Fuller’s emphasis on the internal morality of law is not merely a clash of legal theories but also a reflection of a deeper philosophical debate about the function of law in human life and the source of its binding force. This article analyzes this confrontation and offers a comparative evaluation of the differing theoretical perspectives on the purpose of law.