The aim of the paper is to show paradoxical consequences of an argument which was proposed by Andrzej Grabowski to clarify some aspects of an ongoing controversy between legal positivists and non‑positivists. The argument says that non‑positivists can ignore “an argument from enlightened morality” because positivists who propose it fall into contradictive statements (“schizophrenia” or “double‑thinking”). This metaphilosophical argument leads to paradoxical consequences, i.e. it restricts ways of conducting scientific inquiries. By showing several analogies the author of the paper negates this argument and argues, that the argument from enlightened morality is based on metaphilosophical “principle of co‑thinking”. This principle was formulated explicitly by philosopher Leszek Nowak. The principle of co‑thinking says that scientists should (from time to time) abandon their scientific assumptions and try to “co‑think”, i.e. conduct work on the basis of a different paradigm. By following this principle the community of scientists works more efficiently, because co‑thinking is one of the fundamentals of scientific critique, as was shown by Paul Feyerabend. The argument proposed by Andrzej Grabowski is a symptom of “methodological escapism”. Dysfunctions in discussions between legal positivists and non‑positivists lead to désintéressement and there is a tempting alternative, i.e. ignoring this discussion. In the light of metaphilosophy presented in the paper, the temptation of methodological escapism can be overcome by applying the principle of co‑thinking in everyday work of legal philosophers.