Jurisprudence

Hey guys, I'm studying Jurisprudence as one of my modules and I am trying to formulate a response to the question:



At first I thought it involved talking about Hart-Dworkin debate on separability between law and morals - is this correct?
For example, Nazi laws (as discussed by Hart, Shapiro etc)

But what else can I discuss that is relevant to this question?
Perhaps, Hart's rule of recognition?
And legal obligation?

Also, would Fuller's 8 principles of legality in the 'Internal Morality of law' be relevant here - for the 'good law' part?

Overall, I'm not sure of the argument to shape my essay through evaluation of the statement. Is it too simplistic of a statement to say that understanding law and not understanding what good law is to be separate??

I'd appreciate any help or suggestions anyone has