Statute v Morality: The complex case of Speluncean Explorers

Here, I discuss a case that was never decided, because the parties to the case did not exist, except in the imagination of a Harvard Law School professor. Lon Fuller, a professor of legal philosophy, used a fictional case to illustrate the nature of the law. The general public is aware of the law as a set of rules that regulate our conduct but beyond that, there is little appreciation of the law’s characteristics. People outside legal academia rarely think about these matters and yet it matters a lot, because the law impacts all of us. The Speluncean Explorers case is a good gateway for everyone, not just lawyers, to appreciate the mysteries of the law.

Fuller begins with a story about a group of people who decide to explore caves (known as spelunking). They run into deep trouble when there is a cave-in and the speluncean explorers are trapped. Matters reach such a sorry pass that the explorers kill one of their mates out of hunger. After they are rescued, the explorers are tried for murder.

The law in the fictional state they are tried in has the following text: ‘Whoever shall wilfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.’ The case goes before multiple judges and each of them provides a ruling. Through these rulings, Fuller tries to show how various approaches to the nature of the law can affect judicial decisions. Each of the decisions shows a particular legal philosophy. The case, therefore, manages to achieve two objectives: it showcases the key claims and problems with each philosophical position. It also shows how these are not just abstract, ivory tower issues but issues with which judges struggle. Depending on the kind of legal philosophy a judge adopts, the accused would be hanged or set free.

One of the judges believes that the statute left no option to the judges but to convict the accused. The law is whatever a statute says it is, regardless of what morality requires. The speluncean explorers were in a situation where desperate hunger overcame reason, but the law is the law. His brother judge disagrees; he believes that one ought to adopt a purposive construction of statutes. The purpose of the homicide statute is to deter murderous acts. Since the explorers were in a situation where deterrence would not work, the homicide legislation should be interpreted to exclude them from the charge of murder. A purposive interpretation looks at the values (ethical and moral) behind a statute and thus leads to a closer connection between law and morality.

Another judge, a realist, believes that the entire discussion is bunkum. Except in certain extremely limited cases, realist judges are against the idea of discerning rules established in past legislation and case law and then applying such rules mechanically to the facts of the cases before them. According to the realists, judges can look beyond formal legal sources in coming to a decision. In this case, the realist judge looks at public opinion and gossip in coming to his decision to acquit the accused. As is clear by now, the nature of the law is not an easy matter and because judges have different opinions on it, the law’s requirements are in a state of constant contestation.

In the end, the Speluncean Explorers case is about the standards people apply when they perform the judicial function. Contrary to what many believe, there is no clear answer to this question. HLA Hart, the first of the great modern legal philosophers, believed that the standards judges apply are supplied by lawmakers, such as the legislature. The rules emanating from the lawmakers may not fit all the situations that judges consider, in which case, judges use their discretion to fill in the gaps in the law. Most people intuitively agree with this analysis.

But philosophers like Ronald Dworkin challenged Hart. Dworkin discussed a famous New York case called Riggs v Palmer. A person killed his grandfather and as it so happened, was entitled to inherit his grandfather’s property after his death. The court disallowed the inheritance on the principle that a person should not benefit from his wrongs. Dworkin argued that the principles in play did not look like the rules described by Hart. There was no statute prohibiting people from enjoying their own wrongs. But the judges certainly thought they were applying binding legal standards. But where did these legal standards come from, if these were not established in any statute or precedent? This is not a question to be considered as a nice puzzle on rainy evenings but has important implications for our lives. Judges fine people and send them to jail. We better have a handle on the standards they purport to apply.