Abstract

This paper deals with the ‚description-thesis‘ (R. Schreiber 1962) according to which normative or prescriptive legal statements are reducible to, or translatable into, descriptive propositions. The arguments Schreiber produced in support of his thesis are briefly presented, followed by a discussion of the thesis against the background of Hume’s law and G. E. Moore’s open-question argument. In order to broaden the perspective, some other philosophical views are examined; emphasis is placed on how the is-ought relation was conceived, in conflicting ways, by Hans Kelsen and Friedrich Müller respectively, as compared to the current state of discussion, and what are, according to Ernst Tugendhat and Christoph Möllers, the constituents of (social) norms. As a result, the paper suggests that the description-thesis can not be maintained in its entirety. A special version is presented which seems to respond to the criticism discussed while implying at least part of what Schreiber’s original version claimed.