The Ethical Justification of the Thesis that Separates Law from Morality Through John Austin

The british legal philosopher John Austin stands at the threshold of the evolution of the legal positivist tradition. His work, which dates back to the first half of the 19th century, was especially important to establish the basic elements of this school of legal understanding. Among his contributions to the legal positivist doctrine, lies the creation of the thesis that separates morality from law. Under an ethical context, however, John Austin was an ardent utilitarian who defended the use of the principle of utility as the only rational criteria for the unveiling of superior moral standards (divine laws). Considering both dimensions of his understanding, it has long been wondered if his utilitarian ethics have influenced, somehow, his legal theory, especially in regards to the separation thesis. Said thesis, which is in the center of the legal positivist tradition, has been interpreted in different ways in contemporary legal debate. A particular branch, called ethical positivism, opened new perspectives to the study of this tradition, defending the legal positivism theory as a morally satisfactory theoretical model for the contemporary legal systems. Hence, using the main premise of ethical positivism (which states that there are moral reasons to defend the separation thesis) as an interprative and methodological tool, this paper plans on revisiting the link between John Austins legal and ethical convictions, in order to comprehend what were the moral reasons which led him to defend the separation of what law is and what it should be.