 If the mixed sentence \(\texttt{d} \vee \obcirc \texttt{s}\) is considered to be normative, then (1) is an example of an ‘is-ought’ inference, and if it is considered to be non-normative, then (2) is an example of an ‘is-ought’ inference. So, one of them dichotomically represents a violation of Hume’s thesis in Prior’s terms. Prior concluded from this paradox that Hume’s ‘is-ought thesis’ is simply false (see Prior 1960: 206): one can simply derive conclusions which are ethical starting from premises which have no ethical character.