The oldest debate in jurisprudence is that over whether law derives from eternal principles, God-given or inherent in the universe, or is simply a man-made device fashioned of experience and expediency, warped and shaped by self-interest, altruism and conflicting views of how the world functions. Chaim Perelman's theory of jurisprudence could be seen as a logical outgrowth of that ancient argument insofar as he attempts to reconcile those two themes and show how they have complimented each other by creating a dialectic which produces better decisions than either one could on its own. In this paper we shall briefly summarize the theory that Perelman sets forth in "The Rational and the Reasonable",¹ critique it and then suggest some modifications that we consider appropriate.