Abstract

Properly universal prescriptions (necessary in analysis of value-judgments) entail past-tense imperatives. does the unusability of the latter rule out the former? no, because there are many usable rules which entail past-tense imperatives. else we could not point to past breaches when teaching the rule, which remains the same throughout the teaching process, or punish for past breaches of the same rule which is still in force. similar problem about imperatives in other than the second person succumbs to kenny's distinction between directives and fiats and that between different senses of 'the person commanded'