Abstract
The study makes attempt at understanding law within the positivist tradition which suggests a separation of law from all moral contents. And this is in contrast to the natural law theorists who insist that any imperative that must claim the obedience of man as a member of the civil community must coexist with moral consideration. This moral content, the natural law theorists argue, is discoverable by reasonor in other words, it is engraved in the hearts of all reasonable men by something external to him and which is not socially-determined. Whereas, the legal positivists, while not in principle denying the importance or necessity of morality, argue to the effect that such modality must be ancillary to it and be subsumed under social expediency dictated by competent authority working under a general agreeable legal system. Their argument in general against natural law theory is to the effect that its thesis is founded on controversy and since a controversial principle cannot be made a source of knowledge for the sake of progress, orderliness and stability, humanity must look elsewhere for inspiration. Positive or municipal law becomes imperative.
