What Are the Consequences of Applying Disjunction to Imperatives?

Ross's paradox, observed by Alf Ross, arises from applying classical disjunction introduction under an imperative operator, leading to seemingly absurd results.

While valid deduction in declaratives, like inferring "The room is clean or grass is green" from "The room is clean," applying similar logic to imperatives, such as "Clean your room!" leading to "Clean your room or burn the house down!" appears invalid.

This paradox challenges the understanding of valid imperative inference, contrasting with declarative inference where premises support the conclusion's belief. The debate extends into deontic logic's semantics, where all obligations must be fulfilled in an acceptable possible world, further complicating the issue with contexts like "It is obligatory to not burn the house down." Ross's paradox also relates to the paradox of free choice, emphasizing the nuanced and debated nature of imperative logic and its implications for ethics and metaethics.

How do you perceive the implications of Ross's paradox in our understanding of logic and ethical directives?