Distinction between Jurisprudence and Ethics (A critical look into a historical mistake)

The relation and boundary between jurisprudence and ethics have been a matter of concern to thinkers for some time. Some modernists hold that jurisprudence has brought ethics into bay. As a part of their duty in religious intellectualism, they have been trying to make jurisprudence subject to secular ethics. It seems that their understanding of jurisprudence and ethics depends on some controversial presuppositions, were to be corrected, the erroneous substitution of ethics for jurisprudence would be known. A historical review would prove that the distinction between the two disciplines and their endurance side by side owe to their different subject matters. As a part of its realistic subject matter, ethics deals with the correction of traits and habits, but jurisprudence deals with mentally-posited concepts that manage our behaviors. In what follows, the author has demonstrated that the consideration of ethical propositions as mentally-posited perceptions from one side and the specious understanding of the concepts of jurisprudence from another side gave rise to the project of substitution of ethics for jurisprudence. The consideration of some perplexing angles of legal concepts proves that we fail to logically challenge the propositions of obligation of jurisprudence through simple concepts of modern none-virtue ethics.