The differentiation between what law is and what law ought to be as Hart approaches it, seems to not be contingent upon the issue of morality. My take on this issue is that although in some instances of law morality can have a place and even seem to be the driving force behind an issue, that the presence of morality in certain situations does not mean that it is prevalent in all or even most laws. I also think that in making a distinction between law and morality, the issue really is not morality but rather the popular opinion of the society. The term morality really bothers me in this sense because it to me holds some form of religious connotation, but as with the entire dilemma of how laws can not be logically cut and dry due to the different interpretations of words and phrases, but morality can also be simply what is deemed as right by the general population and may have little to no influence from religious entities. Because law is not straight forward does not mean that it is flawed or needs to be stripped of the reasoning behind it in order to find the most basic or raw understanding. If this very basic or raw law was to be attained a system in which society moved or alter3ed little would need to be the one supporting such a system. The fluidity of a society is in large part, or at least should be, responsible for the acceptance or rejection of raw or more interpreted laws; in a society where little development either socially or economically occurs laws that are very raw are probably more applicable to the society because there is no change, the need for further explanation may not be present.