Abstract

Inclusive and exclusive positivists disagree on whether criteria of validity can incorporate moral norms. Inclusive positivists believe there are conceptually possible legal systems in which the criteria of validity include moral norms (the ‘Incorporation Thesis’). Exclusive positivists, following Joseph Raz, reject the Incorporation Thesis on the ground that subjects of a putative legal system incorporating moral criteria of validity could not identify the law without evaluating the very reasons the law is supposed to replace. Since law cannot be authoritative unless it is identifiable without recourse to those dependent reasons, the Incorporation Thesis is inconsistent with the nature of authority. Most defences of the Incorporation Thesis attempt to refute Raz's theory of authority. In contrast, Jules Coleman argues that inclusive positivism is compatible with Raz's theory. In this essay, I examine Coleman's defence of the Compatibility Thesis