 What about the desire-to-desire theory? If “X is good” means “I desire to desire X” then there is a conceptual connection, though, as Lewis notes, an “iffy” one, between moral belief and action (Lewis 1989: 116/72). I will pursue and promote what I believe to be good in so far as I desire what I desire to desire. Moral judgments “like judgments as to what is, [are] liable to truth and falsehood”, though not very liable to falsehood, since it is difficult, but not impossible, to be mistaken about what we desire to desire. (I might be persuaded, especially under moral pressure, that I desire to desire something when in fact I do not.) But it is possible both to desire the bad (to desire what I desire not to desire) and to have bad desires (to have desires which I desire to desire not to desire). Self-conscious depravity is thus a real possibility and the Socratic paradox is dismissed. For like an unhappy junkie, I can act on desires which I desire not to desire. But it is not possible to desire to desire the bad since what we desire to desire is automatically good. Furthermore, moral judgments are reduced to statements of a psychological state, so much so that ethics becomes a branch of empirical psychology. The axioms of ethics, in so far as there are such things, are concerned with what is, since our desires, including our second-order desires are original existents.