While Fuller invents a judicial case which involves both the moral values and the laws in the most challenging way, Peter Suber tries to make an analysis that will respond to all the key aspects of the scenario. It is worth underlining that Fuller created enough elements in order to have sufficient arguments for both acquittal and conviction, depending on the perspective.

The rule of the judges was difficult because they were actually compelled to define what "good" was. Good is an universal value which everybody understands. However, sometimes only some can benefit from certain advantages while others can not. When life is the advantage at stake, things become even more difficult, as life is the very value of men and the most priced possession. Can one impose his force upon the other in order to survive? The answer should normally be "no" because we are not living in a jungle were the stronger eliminate those which are weaker. However, taking the circumstances into consideration one might ask himself another question: is it better to have ten people dyeing or is it better to have a person killed in order to save the other ten?

It may be stated that, in a certain way, this question is a translation of the very debate between legal realism and legal formalism. On the one hand, there is the universal good which everybody knows and understands. Judging from the perspective of an absolute value, it is obvious that what the judges were supposed to do was to apply the law and punish the survivors. On the other hand, one could ask himself if it is really just to judge everything according to values which are absolute and tend to be abstract in a world where everything is so harshly "real" and different.

The question is extremely difficult. It could be asserted that absolute values...

This may be true to a certain limited extent. If there is no general rule to guide the behaviour principles of all the people, then everyone will create personal values which best suit their interest. This would result into chaos and eventually negative consequences for everybody.
The truth is that an universal value of righteousness can be applied and respected even in a very difficult case, taking into account the circumstances that led to the creation of the situation in case and analyzing all the involved elements, in an exhaustive manner. The subjective side of the ruling comes into discussion as well as another question: when judges are to deliberate, should their use their feelings as well, or only reason? The answer is that they should use both reason and feeling in order to reach a decision.

Nevertheless, this decision must prove to be right for the parties involved in the case but also maintain unharmed the universal principles of right and morality. One could question the capacity of a judge to perform such a task and argue that the answer lies in simply applying the letter of the law. no matter how difficult an issue appears to be common sense usually helps authorities find a just solution. All in all, it can be concluded that the problem is, not to decide which of the two conceptions is better but rather understand which is the best way to keep La and Morality in perfect equilibrium.

Bibliography

Suber, Peter. The case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine new opinions. Routeledge, 1998

The natural law tradition in ethics." Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. 11 March 2008. 17 November 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics