I largely agree with Hart on his distinctions between how and when morals are more applicable, and also as to these morals being more construed as a type of principle that is not intended to be used in each and every case. The application of, or the attempt to pack all things legal whether talking broadly or narrowly into the same thought process and being held under the same constraints is really not very productive. I disagreed largely with the Utilitarian view as Hart described it, when dealing with the issue of extending the purpose of a law to include new or broader cases/instances. The problem I had with this view was that the Utilitarian’s view holds that the extension of the law does not specifically talk about the extension of the principle or specify that the cases now covered will be handled similarly as the ones by which are already seen as fitting under the law. Unless it is to be stated that certain cases are not to be held in like situation, I do not see why when elaborating upon a rule one would place it, even of loosely, into a category and then say oh but we did not mean or intend for that similar case to be viewed using the same principles or purpose as held previously by similar cases. Law as it ought to be and law as it is are overlapping ideas and when talking about where to place morality or how it can be if it should be fit into the mix fits in certain instances and questions of the law while at other times seems to have little or no affect on the law, so to say that law is either completely intertwined or dependant on morals or that it has no place for morals is trying to lump two very different ideas or concepts under one explanation.