 If von Wright launched deontic logic as an academic area of research, Chisholm’s paradox, and similar cases, were the booster rocket that provided the escape velocity deontic logic needed from  subsumption  under normal modal logics, thus solidifying deontic logic’s status as a distinct branch of  logic.[44]  It is now virtually universally acknowledged that Chisholm was right: the sort of conditional deontic claim expressed in (3) can’t be faithfully represented in SDL, nor more generally by a composite of some sort of unary deontic operator and material conditional. The views diverge however where it comes to exactly what should be added to SDL in order to represent conditional obligations. This divergence in turn relates to a distinction between two types of detachment in deontic  reasoning.[45]