Abstract

Jörgen Jörgensen (1938) asks why there should not be a valid deduction even though the premises are imperatives (“Jörgensen’s Dilemma”). Robert Walter (1996; 9 Ratio Juris 168), following Hans Kelsen, thinks that there can be a valid deduction if the premises, although in prescriptive (including imperative) language, are actually descriptions of prescriptions. It is suggested that Walter then has his own dilemma: the more possible it is, for such descriptions to be valid, the less likely it is, that the prescriptions described are illogical; Walter’s Dilemma is a species of Jörgensen’s.