Arrange these positions from the strongest claim about a connection between law and morality to the weakest.

1. Any rule that is grossly unjust is for that reason not law
2. A rule is not law once its injustice becomes intolerable
3. A system that fails every requirement of the internal morality of law is not a legal system
4. Validity and merit are separate questions, and a valid rule may be as unjust as you like

The gradient matters because the debate is usually taught as two camps. In fact the interesting disagreements are about thresholds: Radbruch and the strong natural lawyer differ over how much injustice is needed, and Fuller's claim is weaker still, being about the form of rules rather than their content.