Abstract

The article points to the reasons why Kelsen’s basic norm does not include a transition from is to ought. Alexy’s arguments on why the basic norm would imply a transition from is to ought are presented and discussed. How Hume’s assertions on the impossibility of a transition from is to ought must be seen in the context of Kelsen’s basic norm theory are analyzed. In addition, the question is considered of what sense Hart’s legal theory comprises the idea that a causal connection exists between facts and norms. As a means of rejecting one of Alexy’s key arguments it is argued that the basic norm operates only with posited norms, so that it would not transform facts into norms, but only justify the assertion that already established norms are valid norms.