Lonl L. Fuller e a moralidade interna do direito: os oito desiderata como limites ao exercício da autoridade

Abstract

The present research aims to understand Lon L. Fuller’s theory of the internal morality of law, based on the hypothesis that it constitutes a conception of the Rule of Law, one that responds to the problem of arbitrariness in public decision-making, both at the level of norm production and application (legislative, executive, and judicial). Although Fuller primarily focused on the integrity of legislation, this research hypothesizes that his theory also addresses arbitrariness across other domains of public power. To investigate this, a bibliographical study was conducted, analyzing Fuller’s own writings, the works of his critics, and those of his commentators, adopting a phenomenological-hermeneutic methodological approach, in line with Lenio Streck’s Hermeneutic Critique of Law. The research was structured in three chapters, covering, in summary: (i) who Lon Fuller was and the problems he sought to address; (ii) the philosophical foundations that inspired his conceptions; (iii) what the internal morality of law entails and its constitutive principles, including Fuller’s concept of law and its relationship with citizens’ obedience to norms; and (iv) the confirmation of the research hypothesis — that Fuller’s theory offers a potential response to the challenge of discretion in public decision-making and constitutes a valid understanding of the Rule of Law. The research concluded that Fuller’s internal morality of law should indeed be understood as a conception of the Rule of Law, as it establishes objective and rational criteria that limit the arbitrary exercise of public power. It further demonstrated that Fuller’s conception is not merely a technical set of formal requirements, but an ethical demand grounded in reciprocity and respect for individual autonomy. Thus, Fuller’s theory provides significant normative foundations for confronting discretion and contributes to the strengthening of the Rule of Law and the legitimacy of decision-making institutions.