ABSTRACT
This chapter describes that the issue of the nature of law, its boundary with morality, need have no impact on the outcome of legal cases. No doubt this partly explains the continuing deep disagreement about the boundary of law and morality and the fact that most lawyers and officials, not to mention people generally, are not at all troubled by this disagreement. The important premise here is that what the state presents as law is, as Kelsen, says, typically given the benefit of the doubt. They say it's law, and so it probably is, which means, because of the way law and morality are mixed, that it can't be too bad. Dworkin calls disagreement about what factors can play a role in determining what the law is 'theoretical disagreement in law', and he writes that 'incredibly', our jurisprudence has no plausible theory of theoretical disagreement in law.
