  We may call the speaker “S”, and the addressee “A”. Eriksson’s proposal is that the validity of the reasoning depends upon the descriptive meaning of “bad” (one that it has in general, or, more likely, one that it takes on in this context). Suppose that S judges A’s lying to him to be bad. This must be because, in his view, it has some general bad–making characteristic (or set of characteristics) B*; this lies behind Premise 1. Then, in a simple case (which should suffice for making the present point), what lies behind Premise 2. will be the equal but conditional ascription of B* to A’s lying to him. Premise 1. becomes the antecedent that discharges the consequent of Premise 2., and we have the conclusion stated in 3.