 Evidently, Hare needed to give further thought, within a philosophy of thought and language, to what must be a concept of speaker’s meaning. (At reading parties and in informal discussion, he took a keen interest in the work of H.P. Grice; yet, perhaps out of an awareness of its complications, he never engaged with it in print, or in this connection.) A local reply, which keeps away from any such general philosophy, must have to be on the lines of the following. Evidently, it wasn’t material to the validity of the inference as I presented it how we choose to specify B*. Hence S and A can share a grasp of the validity of the inference even if they both lack, or fail to share, any suitable conception of B*. All that Eriksson offers, and that I have presented, is a schematic grounding of the inference; and, for the reasons given, we can grasp, before we are able to spell out the details in a way that can reliably underpin S and A’s reasoning together to an ethical conclusion, how the schema confirms the validity of the inference. And one real possibility that may ease the situation is this: S and A may agree that there is no relevant general characteristic that distinguishes S’s lying to A from A’s lying to S, though they disagree – or are each unclear – about what characteristic makes both wrong.