  Many attempts have been made since to solve what is essentially the same problem, which arises with any view of moral judgments that denies that they are truth–apt in the substantive sense of describing things, or presenting possible contents of belief about the way things are. Indeed, the topic has come fully to life again during the past ten years or so. Of recent treatments, that which owes the most to Hare, both actually and explicitly, is that of John Eriksson (2009); cf. also Eriksson (2015), and for discussion Eggers (2016). Take the following example (which is more straightforward than Eriksson’s):