 There have been various responses to these RM-related paradoxes. Some defend RM and blame the Ross paradox on an elementary confusion (Føllesdal &amp; Hilpinen 1971) or cite pragmatic features to explain away the puzzle (Castañeda 1981): no one would, e.g., merely utter the statement that John ought to mail or burn the letter, knowing that in fact John ought to just mail the letter. Similarly, it has been argued that the Good Samaritan paradox is really a conditional obligation paradox, and so RM is not the real source of the paradox (Castañeda 1981; Tomberlin 1981). However, since these paradoxes all at least appear to depend on \(\OB\)-RM, a natural solution to the problems is to undercut the paradoxes by rejecting \(\OB\)-RM itself. Two accessible and closely related examples of approaches to deontic logic that reject \(\OB\)-RM from a principled philosophical perspective are Jackson 1985 and Goble  1990a.[88]  A third, somewhat different principled strategy is proposed in Cariani 2013 and studied in formal detail in Van De Putte 2019. Finally, in S. O. Hansson 1990, and more elaborately in Hansson 2001, S.O. Hansson develops systems of deontic logic where he analyzes prohibitive and prescriptive deontic notions in terms of abstract properties of various preference orderings (e.g., a normative status is prohibitive whenever anything worse than something that has that status also has it). He also sees \(\OB\)-RM as the main culprit in the paradoxes of standard deontic logic, and thus he methodically explores non-standard frameworks where \(\OB\)-RM is not  sound.[89]