 He also seems to have accepted Russell’s ad hominem argument B—that, given the fairly obvious fact that doing the done thing does not always produce the best results, his actualist brand of consequentialism is inconsistent with his moral conservatism. However, he did not resolve the problem by modifying thesis (1) as Russell, in effect, recommended—instead he resolved it by dropping thesis (3). In Principia, moral conservatism had been “confidently recommended” to the conscientious “individual”. By the time Moore came to write Ethics in 1912 it had simply disappeared, leaving the puzzled “individual” bereft of practical guidance. What ought the individual to do, when, as is usually the case, she cannot determine, which of the available acts will have the best total consequences? Moore does not say, thereby sacrificing helpfulness to theoretical consistency.