Legal positivism is a jurisprudential school of thought & a doctrine about the nature of law which is poles opposite to the natural law tradition. Its subscribers include luminaries of philosophy such as Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Prof. H.L.A Hart, Joseph Raz & Hans-Kelsen. Whereas the natural law tradition is founded on the overlapping thesis, legal positivism, on the contrary is grounded on the separation thesis. The separation thesis is the contention that there is no necessary connection between law & morality. The implication here is not that moral considerations are unimportant. As Simmonds rightly points out positivists do not necessarily deny the importance of morality. They need not be moral skeptics of any sort. They do not deny that there may be a moral obligation to obey the law. In fact, they acknowledge & realize that law will often coincide or approximate with morality & morality may have a significant influence on the contingent content of law. Indeed in Chapters 1, 8 & 9 of The Concept of Law, Prof. H.L.A Hart cites the examples of the areas in which the two fields unite. Thus we see him giving the example of justice. He says we have justice according to law & justice of the law. We find the prohibitions such as not to kill another or not to use wanton force on others in law & also in morals. But this unity should not lead us to say as St. Augustine once said that an unjust law is not law. According to Hart those who take this line of reasoning do not understand the difference between a legal obligation & a moral obligation. Thus positivists claim that there is no necessary ‘link’ between law & morality. They seek to keep law & morals separate. They are of the view that the mere fact that the mere fact that a rule violates certain standards of morality does not disqualify it from being law if the rule has been made in the appropriate way. As Julie Dickson puts it for them all laws are laid down or posited by a certain procedure. Iniquitous rules, immoral rules, unjust rules can notwithstanding these defects are valid rules of law. This is because for them the validity of a rule depends on its sources (e.g. whether or not it is a good rule). They claim it is possible to describe the law in a value-neutral manner, wherein moral evaluation plays no part. All this is often summarized in the positivist slogan that ‘law can have any content’. Thus the very law-ness of a rule is a matter of pedigree & not content. To put it in the words of Tom Campbell legal positivism seeks to separate two questions: that about the existence of law & that about the moral worth of law.