 Finally, some have argued against the mind-independence of the moral by appeal to fundamental moral disagreements. These are moral disagreements that would survive some set of idealizing conditions like full non-normative information and full rationality. Mackie (1977) himself thought that moral disagreement undermined the “objectivity” of morality – which, for our purposes, can be equated with mind-independence – but because Mackie thought moral talk was committed to objectivity, he concluded that there are no moral facts. Michael Smith (1994: 6) argues that if moral facts are objective, then moral opinions should converge under ideal conditions: thus fundamental moral disagreement would undermine objectivity.