The ‘Is-Ought’ Controversy between Hart and Fuller in the Philosophy of Law: Implications for Judicial Procedures and the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

In presenting the debate between Hart and Fuller, on what is considered descriptive or factual (the ‘is’) and what is considered prescriptive or normative, (the ‘ought’), one would deem it appropriate to make some conceptual clarifications on the various dimensions of jurisprudence, in order to place issues in their proper context, and give the discussion its required focus. In this paper, there will be an attempt to explore the relationship between law and morality; the philosophical background or antecedent factors to, as well as the content, that is, the essential elements of the controversy between H. L. A. Hart  and Lon L. Fuller  on the “is” and “ought” distinction, in legal philosophy. Finally, the discussion will involve a careful ratiocinative assessment of the two contending positions, with a view to determining whether or not there is any definitive way of responding to, or resolving the interlocking issues contained in the debate, keeping in mind the intricacies of judicial procedures, in relation to the criminal justice system.