Correct option is B
The assertion that "some shared morality is essential to the existence of any society" is attributed to
H.L.A. Hart, a prominent legal philosopher. Hart's view on the relationship between law and morality is nuanced and influential in legal theory. Although Hart was a legal positivist who maintained that law and morality are distinct, he also acknowledged the role of a shared morality in the stability and functioning of a society.
In his work
"The Concept of Law" (1961), Hart argued that a legal system comprises primary rules (rules that regulate behavior) and secondary rules (rules about the rules, such as rules of recognition, change, and adjudication). Hart recognized that for a legal system to be effective and for society to function, there must be a certain level of shared moral understanding among its members.
This shared morality helps ensure that people generally follow the laws and that the legal system commands respect and legitimacy. While Hart did not argue that laws must be morally just to be valid, he did see the interplay between law and morality as essential for the cohesion and survival of society.
Information Booster
H.L.A. Hart was one of the most influential legal philosophers of the 20th century, particularly known for his contributions to legal positivism. His theory, especially the distinction between primary and secondary rules, has had a profound impact on legal philosophy.
Hart's concept of the "rule of recognition" is crucial in understanding his view on the relationship between law and morality. The rule of recognition is a social rule that provides the criteria for identifying valid legal norms within a legal system. Hart recognized that the rule of recognition might include moral criteria, reflecting the moral values shared by society.
In his debate with Lon L. Fuller, Hart defended the idea that law could be separated from morality, but he also acknowledged that a legal system without any moral foundation would struggle to maintain social order. This nuanced view allowed Hart to bridge the gap between strict legal positivism and the recognition of the practical importance of shared moral values in society.
Additional Knowledge
·
Lon L. Fuller (Option a): Fuller was a natural law theorist who argued against Hart's legal positivism. He believed that law inherently involves a commitment to moral values, and a legal system lacking such a commitment would fail to function properly. Fuller's most famous work,
"The Morality of Law", outlines his belief that law and morality are deeply intertwined, and he proposed the "Eight Principles of Legality" as essential conditions for a functioning legal system.
·
Hans Kelsen (Option c): Kelsen was a legal positivist like Hart but took an even more rigid stance on the separation of law and morality. His "Pure Theory of Law" focused on the idea that law is a system of norms, and the validity of these norms is independent of moral considerations. Kelsen's theory emphasized the hierarchical structure of legal norms, culminating in the "Grundnorm" or basic norm, which is the foundational norm from which all other legal norms derive their authority.
·
Justice Krishna Iyer (Option d): V.R. Krishna Iyer was an eminent Indian judge and a proponent of judicial activism. While he often invoked moral reasoning in his judgments, particularly in the context of social justice, he did not explicitly argue that shared morality is essential to the existence of society in the way Hart did. His contributions to Indian jurisprudence were significant, particularly in advancing the rights of marginalized communities and promoting human rights.
