Inclusivism: between the rock of moral realism and the hard place of exclusive positivism

According to Juan Carlos BAYON, inclusive legal positivism is inconsistent, insofar as its allegedly conventionalist assumptions seem to be incompatible with the consequences of the incorporation of moral principles as criteria of legal validity that this theory acknowledges as possible. In particular, inclusive positivism would face a dilemma: if it holds that the law directs the judge to recourse to positive morality in order to identify the legal contents, it collapses into the exclusive version of positivism; if, on the other hand, it holds that the law appeals to substantive moral reasoning, it becomes obliged to withdraw its conventionalist assumptions, in favor of moral realism. In this paper I will analyze BAYON'S critique and try to offer an argument to counter that objection.