After determining the existence of a justifying and interpretive relationship between law and morality, the Argentine philosopher Carlos Nino detected two apparent paradoxes that were derived from this link and that produced, as he explained, the risk of converting law into something irrelevant in practical reasoning. Both problems will be analyzed in this paper. The first paradox is that of the superfluous nature of law which Nino chooses to describe in these words: "If we must inevitably demonstrate that a legal regulation is founded on moral principles conceived as valid, why can we not also find the justification of that action or decision based directly on those same principles? Why is a government, with its laws, necessary when these ...