Separation Thesis Ideology

In the context of Jurisprudence, the Separation Thesis ideology, the view of Legal positivists, asserts that while legal and moral obligation are separate and there is no necessary connection between law and morals, legal and moral obligation sometimes overlap and it may be necessary to examine the standard of rules as it relates to our obligation to obey them, although, there is no rule to obey laws. 1 Contrary to the view of Legal positivists, the natural law theory denotes that rules of law are derived from principles protecting an individual’s rights and principles of morality.2 In other words, the fundamental criteria for validity of the law is based on principles of justice and morality.3 This essay will briefly examine the origin of the Separation Thesis (the “Thesis’), analyse the Thesis with reference to H. L. A Hart’s views, present opposing views and argue that the claim of the Separation Thesis, that there is no necessary relationship between legal and moral obligation is flawed. Finally, it will provide a conclusion for the arguments set forth.
Nonetheless, this argument was revolutionize, by Hart which followed those of Jeremy Betham and John Austin, not only expanding on the notion of the Sovereign as the ultimate authority of law, but further arguing in his book, The Concept of Law, that law is separate from