The controversy between the adherents of ius-naturalism and the adherents of legal positivism, pursued intensely for more than 200 years, did not lead to any definitive conclusions. Its main result is only making these two legal-philosophical views more precise and refined. One of the main reasons for this state of affairs seems to be that endorsing one of these views depends mainly on how one resolves other meta-philosophical or philosophical problems. The author develops this general thesis in the context of the controversy about the nature of conscience. The author distinguishes two positions in this controversy (the reductionist and the non-reductionist) and argues that the former leads to the acceptance of legal positivism and the latter to the acceptance of ius-naturalism.