 A we have seen, Russell’s meta-ethic was closely connected to his program of moral reform. The idea was to advocate a set of humane and egalitarian ends, using non-rational methods of persuasion, and then to argue on the basis of psychology, social science, history and common sense that that these ends would be best achieved if, on the whole, people obeyed a reformed moral code. Judgments that this or that is good or bad were to be construed as disguised optatives (“Would that everyone desired X!” and “Would that everyone desired not Y!” respectively). “Ought” and “right” were to be given a consequentialist reading and indexed to the ends that Russell hoped his audience could be persuaded to share. Thus Russell combined an emotivist analysis of “good” and “bad” with a consequentialist/relativist reading of “ought” and “right”. But was he right to do so?