 But perhaps there can be a context in which (i) and (ii) are both true and hence the former is not a counterexample to the latter. An example is the context in which we know for sure that we are able to launch a war that ends all existing wars. Indeed, the occurrences of ‘ought’ in those two sentences seem to have very different readings. Sentence (ii) can be understood to express a norm which portrays what the state of the world ought to be like—what the world would be like if things were ideal. Such a norm is often called an ought-to-be norm or evaluative norm, pointing to one or another ideal. On the other hand, sentence (i) can be understood as a norm which specifies what an agent ought to do in a less-than-ideal situation that she turns out to be in—possibly with the goal to improve the existing situation and bring it closer to the ideal specified by an ought-to-be norm, or at least to prevent the situation from getting worse. This kind of norm is often called an ought-to-do norm, a deliberative norm, or a prescriptive norm. So, although the truth of (i) can sound like a counterexample to (ii), the tension between the two seems to disappear with appropriate readings of ‘ought’.