 More so than Grotius, Pufendorf clearly distinguished natural and moral goods (DJN I.2.6), maintaining that the former are morally indifferent even if generally agreed upon by humans (DJN I.4.4, II.3.4). Thus, since moral norms are not directly linked to the intrinsic natures or purposes of things, or to the outcomes of actions, he was neither a teleologist nor a consequentialist in ethics (in the sense of maintaining an obligation to achieve or realize natural ‘goods’ or ‘the good’, which are assumed already to be morally compelling). However, the so-called natural goodness or evil of things, their ability to benefit or harm us, provide the rationale for the imposition of moral entities by intelligent beings from which obligation springs. That is, they have (especially in the case of natural goods) a sort of evidentiary function, explaining why the obliger wills such-and-such, and why the obligee wills (or might be motivated to) its acceptance. Thus, when discussing moral persons Pufendorf says that the impositions which produce that rank or status should have a positive effect (solidus effectus) on humankind and not be made frivolously, as when Caligula declared his horse a senator, when the ancient Romans deified their emperors, and when papists, still, declare saints by a similar sort of post-mortem canonization – all with normative impact (DJN I.1.15). Similarly, when explaining the legitimating aspect of commands or obligations (human or divine), or that in them which evokes our reverence or respect, Pufendorf stresses the commanding party’s ability and willingness to benefit (or his having done so) those on whom the obligation lies (DJN I.6.12, DO I.5). In sum, while natural good and evil are not the source of obligation per se, and moral necessity is not hypothetical in that sense, they do explain why there is such a thing as obligation at all, or what the point of it is. Moreover, since what benefits or harms humans is known through experience, empirical investigation, and knowledge of the past (history), these operate as heuristics for determining our obligations and explain why, in some cases, there may be disagreement about them. Of course, such differences do not concern whether moral commands as such formally obligate or not, but whether specific actions are in fact morally commanded. That at least some of them are (Pufendorf also allowed for indifferent actions), and that in particular moral spaces or contexts we can usually determine which ones, is a basic assumption of Pufendorf’s theory.