IntroductionThe jurisprudential question of whether, in a modern constitutional democracy, citizens have a duty to obey the law, whether its content is morally right or not, has been at the heart of many theorists. Natural law theorists argue that laws should only be obeyed if they conform to morality. Conversely, positivists argue that law has the status of law if a recognized “human” authority enacts it in the accepted manner and therefore must be obeyed. Both theories, if examined in their simplistic definitions, are problematic. However, if we analyze the theorists individually, there are theorists from both schools who argue credibly. I propose that Bentham's theory is the most practical theory in a modern constitutional democratic society and, therefore, I will argue that we should obey the law with reference to Bentham's guidelines. Law and Morality Law is generally difficult to define because it emerges from many sources and fulfills its functions. many functions and different branches in a company. However, it is objectively obvious that the general objective of law is to order society by means of prescriptive rules. Hobbes addressed the necessity of law and described a state of nature governed by instinct. He explains that where society exists without order, the people would disappear. Therefore, people would willingly sacrifice their unlimited freedom to gain protection from their fellow citizens. Likewise, morality is another normative moral system in which a group determines what is right and wrong. It is understandable that morality and law are closely related, as they both aim to enforce norms. However, the standards are not always the same and can subsequently come into conflict. It is difficult to see that, in a modern democratic society, finding a middle of paper with concerns about Bentham proves that Bentham's theory is the most congruent in the circumstances. However, I will briefly refute this criticism of democracy, because it must be recognized that individuals constitute the majority. Conclusion Extreme interpretations of either theory are unrealizable. Natural law as absolute would facilitate chaos and disorder, while “sacred laws” would justify all actions. Likewise, value-free positivism could have catastrophic consequences to the extent that it justifies Nazi Germany and other political programs. Thus, the objective need for a law must encourage citizens to obey the law and, in the context of a modern democratic society, Bentham's theory is the most congruent because in a constitutional democracy, the majority of the people voted and elected its sovereign democratically and the purpose of the law is protected by the Constitution.