The world is made up of dueling philosophies and principles. From political parties to legal ideologies, the world seems destined to be divided into some sort of dichotomy. The legal philosophies of positive law and natural law are no different. Many of us notice these differences because most of the time they are quite obvious, yet most of us don't take the time to think and think in our minds about why these distinctions are important. It is not enough to say that two things are different or simply opposite. To truly understand the philosophical and jurisprudential foundations of each school of legal thought, we must instead ask why this distinction must be made in the first place and what effect this has on our legal understanding. My intention is to show in this article, in addition to explaining the fundamental differences between the two ideologies, why it is important to distinguish between the two. Various works of legal literature will be used to convey this point, such as articles by Lon Fuller including the infamous debate between him and HLA Hart. To better understand the background of these jurisprudential philosophies, we will first explore their history and explain the details of their respective precepts. When we first think of natural law, the first word that often comes to mind is morality. The concept dates back to Aristotle, who emphasized that just because something was considered right in the eyes of the law did not necessarily mean it was right in the eyes of nature. Indeed, natural law can be considered as a set of moral principles intended to guide human conduct. These laws are said to derive from nature...... middle of paper ...... take responsibility that comes from making and following laws. Better understanding the positivist and naturalist perspectives, each in its own dimension, will allow us to dialogue with the legal system and with each other with greater fairness and efficiency. In addition to respecting these philosophies in their individual domains, we must also recognize how they coincide and what this convergence means for the way we live our lives. Works Cited Fuller, Lon L. Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association, 1958. Print. Hart, HLA The Concept of Law. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. Print. Fuller, Lon L. The Case of the Speluncéan Explorers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review, 1949. Print. Finnis, John. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Print.