Fuller’s hypothetical case in 1949 initiated an important debate in legal philosophy to establish whether judges strictly apply the law as provided by a statute or whether they (judges) should ensure justice is being done when applying the law. In the allegorical case presented to the Supreme Court of Newgarth, four explorers were accused of murdering one explorer, yet there was an agreement that one of them should be cannibalized to save the remaining team. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
Natural law and legal realism can be applied in this case to determine the ethical issue arising. The concept of natural law theory provides that the law should not be applied in a vacuum. It must have moral value and at the same time appear valid to those being served. In this case, judges should have considered the practical situation facing the explorers and the fact that the victim, Roger Whetmore, had the intent to cannibalize any other explorer if the dice fell on them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Using the concept of legal realism, it is important for Judges to create a scenario where the law is applied in a progressive manner. The law should not be rigid in its application. The creators of a given statute may not have envisioned some challenging scenarios as the one presented before the Supreme Court of Newgarth. Determining the case in a closed and rigid manner therefore creates a terrible precedence that may take years to be corrected. Considering that the case may be used as the benchmark while determining future cases, judges have a responsibility creating a flexible environment where the statute is applied and justice served at the same time. Justice Foster raised a very important concern that the men were not in an environment where they could be guided by the normal coexistence laws. Application of the law in such a case should have considered such dynamics and acquit the four.
