 Discussion has focused upon the special problems that arise over embeddings within the antecedents of conditionals. With the occurrence of moral predicates within indirect speech Hare faced separate difficulties, and ones to which he offers no explicit solution. However, if there is to be any hope of a solution, he may need, in this case, to exploit his notion of descriptive meaning. Take as an example, “S believes that lying is wrong”, or alternatively (and indifferently) “S holds lying to be wrong.” A direct analysis of what he believes in believing this is hardly going to be available. Yet one may be able to specify, taking Hare’s analysis of “Lying is wrong” as a hypothesis, what has to be true if S is to count as believing that lying is wrong. S needs to have a conception of some feature that characterizes lying in virtue of which, once he is prescribing universally, he forbids it. (Or else, S may be unable to say what it is about lying that makes it wrong to lie, yet without doubting that lying has some feature that does this.) What then gives intelligibility and determinacy to the content of his “belief” is not a set of truth-conditions, but an act of will that rests upon a factual basis, and does not simply reiterate what his nanny has taught him to will. He holds what is straightforwardly a factual belief about lying (though he may be variably able to articulate it), and forbids lying in the light of that.  