 The argument from ICEs has some shortcomings. First, it seems only to strike against theories according to which specific moral facts concerning specific agents are grounded in the attitudes or idealized attitudes of those agents. Second, recall that, for reasons we explained before, we take the debate about mind-dependence to concern whether normative principles are fully metaphysically grounded in mental facts. The example of Caligula, and similar examples found in Parfit (2011: ch 2, sec 11), Williams (1989 [1995: 39]) and Hume (1739–40: Book 2, Part 3), are not on point, for they all concern an agent with a specific mental profile and a specific moral claim involving that agent. The interesting question is whether we can use the basic idea of ICEs to develop analogous objections to views that fully ground normative principles in mental facts.